thesis

Maximilianus Hell (1720-1792)
and the Eighteenth-Century Transits of Venus
A Study of Jesuit Science in Nordic and Central European Contexts
Per Pippin Aspaas
University of Tromsø, 2012
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements ……………………………………………………………......... vi
PART I Introduction and Biographical Essay
I.1
Maximilianus Hell, the Eighteenth-Century Transits of Venus and the Role of this
Thesis…………………………………………………………………………..........
2
Historiography and Further Outlining of Aims and Scope………………………….
8
I.1.1.1 Studies of the Transits of Venus as Such……………………………………………
9
I.1.1
I.1.1.2 Studies of Jesuit Science of Relevance to the Eighteenth-Century Transits of
Venus………………………………………………………...................................... 12
I.1.1.3 Studies of the Nordic Countries and the Eighteenth-Century Transits of Venus....... 15
I.1.1.4 Studies of the Life and Career of Maximilianus Hell………………………………. 22
I.1.2
Analytical Approach, Selection of Sources and Technical Remarks….…………… 29
I.1.2.1 Analytical Approach………………………………………………………............... 29
I.1.2.2 Selection of Sources………………………………………………………………… 39
I.1.2.3 Technical Remarks…………………………………………………………………. 43
I.2
Maximilianus Hell SJ (1720-1792): A Biographical Essay……………………………. 45
I.2.1
From Childhood to Priest and Professor, 1720-1755………………………………. 52
I.2.2
Jesuit Professor and Court Astronomer, 1755-1768……………………………….. 66
I.2.2.1 Parallel Lives: Alternative Career Paths in the Austrian Province of the Society
of Jesus……………………………………………………………………………… 84
I.2.3
The Gloriously Infamous Explorer, 1768-1773………………………….................. 104
I.2.4
The Ex-Jesuit, 1773-1792…………………………………………………………... 136
I.2.4.1 Parallel Lives, Part II: Career Paths of Other Ex-Jesuits from the Austrian
Province of the Society of Jesus....……………………………………………….… 162
I.2.5
Assessment of Maximilianus Hell’s Career………………………………………... 178
PART II The Eighteenth-Century Transits of Venus and the Role of Maximilianus Hell
Nordic and Central-European Contexts
II.1
The 1761 Transit of Venus and the Role of Father Hell.............……………………... 184
II.1.1 The Phenomenon and its Place in Contemporary Astronomy…...………………..... 186
II.1.2 The 1761 Transit of Venus………………………………………………………..... 194
II.1.3 Father Hell as a ‘Networker’, Anno 1761……………………………………….… . 203
II.1.4 Father Hell on Lessons to be Drawn from the 1761 Transit…………………….…. 207
II.1.5 Assessment of Father Hell’s Role in 1761………...............................................…... 211
II.2
The Nordic Regions and the Transits of Venus, 1761 and 1769…………………….... 219
II.2.1 The Role of Sweden in the Venus Transit Projects, 1761 and 1769……………...... 224
II.2.2 The Role of Russia in the Venus Transit Projects, 1761 and 1769……………...…. 228
II.2.3 The Role of Denmark in the Venus Transit Project of 1761……………………..... 237
II.2.4 The Role of Denmark in the Venus Transit Project of 1769, with a Glance at
British Activities in the Same Year……………………………………………........ 245
II.2.4.1 The Outcome of Efforts to Observe the Venus Transit from Danish-Norwegian
Soil in 1769……………………………………………………………………...… 255
II.2.5 Assessment of Venus Transit Activities in the Nordic Regions………………...…. 269
II.3
The Role of Father Hell in the Venus Transit Project of 1769………………………. 279
II.3.1 Two Rejected Invitations and One Accepted…………………………………….... 281
II.3.2 Father Hell’s Determination of the Coordinates of His Observatory and
Observation of the Venus Transit in Vardø………………………………………... 292
II.3.3 The Publication of the Vardø Report, Unduly Late? …………............................… 304
II.3.3.1 Contemporaneous Reactions to the Late Arrival of Hell’s Report……………....... 310
II.3.4 The Controversy over the Solar Parallax, 1770-1775……………………………..... 317
II.3.5 The Nachleben of Hell’s Vardø Observations……………………………………... 331
II.3.6 Assessment of Father Hell’s Role in the Venus Transit Project of 1769…………... 336
PART III Editions of Primary Sources
I.1
Maximilianus Hell’s Call for Subscriptions to the Expeditio litteraria ad Polum
arcticum and His Unfinished Introduction to that Work………………………........ 344
III.1.1 Editing, Translating and Commenting Neo-Latin Texts............................................ 347
III.1.2 The Editing of the Call for Subscriptions................................................................... 352
III.1.3 The Editing of the Unfinished Introduction............................................................... 357
III.2
The Call for Subscriptions to the Expeditio litteraria ad Polum arcticum
(Maximiliani Hell è S. J., Invitatio ad subscribentes operis Expeditionis litterariae
ad Polum arcticum ex textibus impressis et manuscriptis autographis edita,
apparatu critico, versione et notis Anglicis instructa / Maximilianus Hell of the
Society of Jesus, Invitation to subscribers for the work Scientific Expedition by
the North Pole, edited from printed texts and autograph manuscripts and
furnished with a critical apparatus, translation and commentary in English)............. 361
III.3
The Unfinished Introduction to the Expeditio litteraria ad Polum arcticum
(Maximiliani Hell è S. J., Introductio in Expeditionem litterariam ad Polum
arcticum ex manuscriptis autographis edita, apparatu critico Latino, versione
et notis Anglicis instructa / Maximilianus Hell of the Society of Jesus, Introduction to the Scientific Expedition by the North Pole, edited from autograph
manuscripts and furnished with a critical apparatus in Latin and translation and
commentary in English).............................................................................................. 383
Summary and References
Summary…………………………………………………………………………………….. 420
Unprinted Sources and Literature………………………………………………….....… 424
Unprinted Sources and Literature, 1a: Letters Written by Hell………………….... 427
Unprinted Sources and Literature, 1b: Letters Written to Hell…………………..... 433
Unprinted Sources and Literature, 1c: Manuscripts, Reports and Other
Documents Written by, or at least Signed by Hell…………………………............. 436
Unprinted Sources and Literature, 2a: Letters Written by Sajnovics……………..... 441
Unprinted Sources and Literature, 2b: Manuscripts, Reports and Other
Documents Written by, or at least Signed by Sajnovics………………………........ 442
Printed Sources and Literature, Part 1 – Before 1800……………………………... 444
Printed Sources and Literature, Part 2 – After 1800………………………………. 460
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study of the history of astronomy during the eighteenth century was undertaken by a
classical scholar with no previous training in either History, Astronomy or EighteenthCentury Studies. Now that I finally find myself able to submit it, I have become obliged to a
number of institutions and individuals who have helped along the way.
First of all, I should like to thank my first Latin lecturers back in the university year 1993/94,
Jens Lauesen and Espen Karlsen, for inspiring me to pursue my studies of the language far
longer than I had originally intended. Espen was also the one who pointed out the existence of
a travel account by a Jesuit priest named Hell. Since I received my candidatus philologiae
degree at the University of Oslo in 2001 for a thesis on the first century BCE author Cornelius
Nepos, a new project on Father Hell has gradually materialised.
Thanks to travel grants from the Centre for Sámi Studies and the Geophysical Observatory in
Tromsø I was able to visit the Viennese University Observatory in the summer of 2003, where
I photographed the main part of Hell’s surviving manuscripts (cf. Hansen & Aspaas 2005;
Aspaas 2012a & 2012b). I thank Prof. Maria G. Firneis and Mag. Thomas Löger for their help
during that visit; Prof. Firneis even helped facilitate another visit in 2006. Nils Voje Johansen
from the University of Oslo joined me on my first trip to Vienna, and we later wrote a couple
of popular articles on the subject (Aspaas & Voje Johansen 2004a & 2004b; see also Voje
Johansen’s own publications). Nils has given me access to his entire collection of archival
materials and offered all sorts of advice over the years. It goes without saying that his
assistance has been vital to my studies.
Truls Lynne Hansen of Tromsø Geophysical Observatory hired me as a scientific assistant in
the autumn of 2003, with the specific task of studying Father Hell’s previously unpublished
geomagnetic observations from Norway (cf. Hansen & Aspaas 2005; Aspaas & Hansen 2007;
Aspaas 2008e). Truls has been supporting my research in various ways – including financially
– and served as a de facto co-supervisor ever since. Without his constant encouragement and
help over the years, I doubt that I would ever have been able to finish this work.
The Research Council of Norway granted support for a three-year project on Maximilianus
Hell and his assistant, Joannes Sajnovics. Even as my thesis became increasingly overdue, my
supervisors Lars Ivar Hansen, professor of history at the University of Tromsø and Egil
Kraggerud, now professor emeritus of Latin at the University of Oslo, have shown unfailing
overbearing and patience. Furthermore, I wish to thank the staff at the Department of History
(now History and Religious Studies) at the University of Tromsø for their collegial support
ever since I became attached to that institute in 2004. My gratitude also goes to new
colleagues at the University Library of Tromsø, where I have been working since 2009. I am
particularly indebted to Helge Salvesen and Johanne Raade for periodically granting me leave
from my duties as an academic librarian so that I could finish this project.
The Nordic Sámi Institute in Kautokeino (Guovdageaidnu) supported my research with a
four-month scholarship in the winter of 2007/2008. I also received a two-month stipendium
from the Research Council of Norway in the autumn of 2008 for a related project with Teemu
Ryymin of the Stein Rokkan Centre in Bergen. Although historical encounters with the Sámi
and the (pre-)history of Finno-Ugrian Studies form no prominent part of the present
monograph, I have pursued those subjects in various articles (Aspaas 2008c; Ryymin &
Aspaas 2009a & 2009b; Aspaas in press).
- vi -
Special thanks are due to Marie-Theres Federhofer and Michael Schmidt of the Forschungsgruppe Dilettantismus of the University of Tromsø. Michael even read through my entire
thesis before I submitted it (see also my contribution to Federhofer & Hodacs, eds., 2011).
I also thank the organisers of gatherings for Norwegian classical philologers in Rosendal 2004
and Rome 2005; colleagues in a Nordic network on the history of research into the Aurora
Borealis; a Norwegian network for historians of science initiated by Vidar Enebakk; and a
Tromsø-based network led by professors Henning Howlid Wærp, Einar-Arne Drivenes and
Robert Marc Friedman (the Narrating the High North group), for moral support and
stimulating discussions.
There have been more helpers. My spouse Kari Aga Myklebost helped me collect manuscripts
and printed sources from archives and libraries during a trip we made to Saint Petersburg in
2004 and she has also translated some key Russian sources. Mary Katherine Jones has done
proofreading of earlier drafts of this thesis (whatever errors have slipped in since then are my
responsibility). Yngvar Steinholt, associate professor of Russian language and culture at the
University of Tromsø, has offered technical assistance and helped me with transliterations
from Russian. What few incursions into the Hungarian historiography that are made in the
present thesis have been possible thanks to my translator and scientific assistant Ágnes
Kunszenti in Oslo. Magda Vargha in Budapest and Johan Stén in Esbo (Espoo, Finland) have
kindly placed at my disposal their collections of archival sources on Hungarian and
Finnish/Swedish astronomers respectively.
My thanks are also due to Thomas Posch, Franz Kerschbaum, Nora Pärr, Lajos Bartha,
Alexander Moutchnik, Jürgen Hamel, Peter Brosche, Guy Boistel, Colette Le Ley and Osmo
Pekonen. As a result of these contacts various shorter articles related to the thesis have
already been or are being published abroad (cf. Aspaas 2008a; 2008b; 2008d; 2010 & in
press; Aspaas, Posch, Müller & Bazso in preparation).
Finally, a more personal remark. This doctorate was begun in March 2004 by a father of one
son and finished nearly eight years later by the father of four sons. The combination of family
life with extensive research and voluntary work – as a secretary of the Norwegian Society for
Eighteenth-Century Studies, secretary of Historisk Forening in Tromsø and co-editor of the
journal Sjuttonhundratal – has been challenging. Frankly, it feels as though I have gained
personal experience with that old Callimachean slogan, μέγα βιβλίον μέγα κακόν (‘a big book is
a big evil’).1 Traditionally interpreted as an aesthetic stance – the Alexandrian poet and
scholar Callimachus advocated the epyllion (‘little epic’) in favour of the epos (‘grand epic’) –
I personally find it applicable also for modern scholarship. A big book can be a big evil, not
only to those who are to read it, but even more so to the writer himself, not to speak of his
closest friends and family members. I acknowledge the robust patience and empathy of my
friends, my parents, my oldest son Sindre and above all my dear Kari. Takk alle sammen!
Tromsø, Friday 13 January 2012 (quod felix faustumque sit!)
Per Pippin Aspaas
1
Callimachus (Καλλίμαχος), fragmentum 465 in the edition of Pfeiffer 1949.
- vii -
Part I
INTRODUCTION AND BIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY
I.1
MAXIMILIANUS
HELL,
THE
EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY
TRANSITS OF VENUS AND THE ROLE OF THIS THESIS
In the years 1768-1770, a scientific expedition led by Maximilianus Hell, court astronomer of
Empress Maria Theresa, made its way from Vienna to a settlement on the remote, northeastern coast of Norway, by the name Wardoehus (now Vardø). The principal goal of the
expedition was that the Jesuit Father Hell on behalf of King Christian VII of Denmark and
Norway should make observations of a ‘transit’, or passage of Venus in front of the Sun. This
rare celestial event was to take place during midnight 3-4 June 1769. Similar expeditions were
dispatched to various corners of the earth for the same occasion, the idea being that a
combination of data sets obtained by skilled astronomers would lead to an accurate
determination of the so-called ‘solar parallax’, or true distance between Sun and Earth. In
characteristic eighteenth-century spirit, Maximilianus Hell and his team also conducted
research into several subjects besides the astronomical main task of the expedition. One such
sub-branch of their research was investigation of the local Sámi (“Lappish”) language,
resulting in an elaborate ‘Demonstration that the Hungarian and Lappish Language is the
same’, now a classic of Finno-Ugric linguistics. Another sub-branch were geophysical
observations resulting in an equally elaborate, but mistaken, ‘New Theory of the Aurora
Borealis’. The team also succeeded to observe the Venus transit itself, and it is chiefly for this
achievement that the leader of the expedition has entered the annals of European astronomy.
This thesis explores the scientific career of the Jesuit Father Maximilianus Hell, with a special
emphasis on his works in relation to the transits of Venus. It is first and foremost a sourcebased, historical case study. As a case study, its overarching aim is to contribute to a fuller
and more nuanced understanding of the Venus transit projects of the eighteenth century, seen
as an international enterprise. Furthermore, by focusing on Latin texts and discussing certain
socio-linguistic aspects of eighteenth-century science, the thesis also seeks to use insights
acquired from the field of philology to enrich the historiography of science.
The present study has two foci. First, it explores the history of Nordic and Central-European
participation in the Venus transit projects of the eighteenth century. Second, it contextualises
the career of the astronomer Maximilianus Hell as an example of Jesuit science in the age of
European Enlightenment. In terms of structure, the thesis consists of discussions of various
-2-
themes with concluding remarks at the end of each chapter (parts I and II), followed by
editions of primary sources (part III), a summary and lists of sources and literature.
Until now, most historical studies of the transits of Venus have focused on the roles of French
and British protagonists. Maximilianus Hell has generally been depicted as a somewhat
peripheral figure on the larger canvas of Enlightenment figures following in the footsteps of
Kepler and Newton. At first sight, such a depiction appears justified. For as it turned out, this
Central-European Jesuit was accused of having seen little or nothing of the Venus transit in
Vardø. Instead, according to the allegations of certain colleagues, he must have fabricated his
sets of data after he had gained access to corresponding observations made at other sites.
Although later investigations have proven these allegations wrong, this does not mean that
Father Hell deserves to be characterised as an eminent astronomer at the scale of a Halley or a
Cassini. But how should he then be depicted? Does a vocabulary associated with peripheral
and exotic phenomena render justice to his expedition and to the debates that followed in its
wake?
Historians of science have of late been inclined to reject ‘big histories’ (surveys) and have
instead investigated how knowledge production is embedded in local contexts. Contrary to
what popular science writing tends to postulate, that certain characters through history have
been able to break out of ‘extra-scientific’ challenges posed upon them by religion, politics,
prejudice or financial constraints in order to produce ‘pure science’, professional historians of
science have tried to demonstrate how even the greatest of minds have always been entangled
in an age, a place, a milieu – in other words, a context. That realisation permeates the present
study as well. However, although the thesis is cast as a case study on the role of an individual,
the Jesuit Father Maximilianus Hell, it is far from any microstoria. Instead, it draws upon
primary sources preserved in several countries and in various languages in an attempt to
analyse a set of local, regional, national and international contexts, into which the works of
Hell and other contemporaneous astronomers are inscribed. Rather than looking for the
singular genius, the thesis seeks to clarify the conditions for astronomical research in Central
Europe and the Nordic countries in the latter half of the eighteenth century.
The planet Venus passed in front of the sun on two occasions in the eighteenth century, in
1761 and 1769. Both events entailed large-scale, international co-operation as well as
competition and controversy. The role of Jesuit science in this highlighted chapter of world
-3-
astronomy has so far received scarce attention in the historiography. Given the lack of
comprehensive studies, it comes as no great surprise that a recent publication offering an
overview of ‘The Jesuits and World Science, 1540-1773’, concludes that the Society of Jesus1
played only a secondary role in the most important scheme for coordinated
observations in the eighteenth century, the observations of the transits of Venus
across the face of the Sun in 1761 and 1769.
This thesis makes a different case. In exploring the scientific capability and international
orientation of Maximilianus Hell and some selected colleagues of his, it seeks to demonstrate
that although their Society came increasingly under pressure since the mid eighteenth century
until it was finally dissolved by the Pope in 1773, the Jesuits were still able to influence
greatly on the spatial distribution, scientific design and sheer scale of the global Venus transit
enterprise. Jesuit astronomy should not be seen as exotic or peripheral per se.
The subtitle of the thesis promises a study of Jesuit science in Nordic and Central-European
contexts. To take Central Europe first: two factors were fundamental to Maximilianus Hell’s
scientific career, namely the provincial division of the Society of Jesus to which he belonged
and the territorial expanse of the House of Habsburg that paid him. The “Austrian Province”
of the Jesuit order encompassed present-day Austria and Hungary along with regions now
known as Slovakia, western Romania, Croatia, Slovenia and northeastern Italy. The Viennaadministered state, whose court astronomer Hell remained until his death in 1792, had
territorial interests across this entire vista and beyond. Considered by some as a “state within
the state”, the Society of Jesus was capable of making decisions concerning, for example,
whether or not an astronomical observatory was to be founded at a particular university and
how it was to be equipped. It did so in southern Styria as well as in far-eastern Transylvania.
After the Society of Jesus became suppressed in 1773, the state took over the role as the
principal decision maker concerning higher education and research in the region. This
changed the working conditions for most Central-European astronomers. Furthermore, due to
territorial expansions, Galicia and Silesia became a matter of importance to former Jesuit
astronomers of Central Europe. There exists nothing resembling a ‘general history of
astronomy in Central Europe’, or a comprehensive study of the ‘history of astronomy in the
Austrian Province of the Jesuits’ for that matter. So far, the few studies that exist have tended
1
Burns 2011, chapter on “The Jesuits and World Science, 1540-1773”, here pp. 85-86.
-4-
to take the modern borders as their point of departure. This thesis employs a different
perspective, by exploring developments in the entire region as a whole.
Bits and pieces of the Nordic history of eighteenth-century astronomy will be known to
specialists in the field. A scholar like Pehr Wargentin in Stockholm, an eminent ‘networker’
in his own age, has been able to make his way into the international historiography alongside
a handful of his Swedish contemporaries. It is also known that the polymath Leonhard Euler
stayed in Russia during parts of his career, and his contemporary Mikhail Lomonosov is
hailed by many as a discoverer of the atmosphere of Venus. Denmark-Norway is less known
for its contributions to the exact sciences in the same period. As for astronomy, Tycho Brahe
had left Danish-ruled Hven more than a century and a half before the transits of the 1760s.
Academic historians, including historians of science, have of late turned increasingly towards
comparative studies. Nordic scholars are no exception in this respect. However, the tendency
so far has been that developments in a single Nordic country are compared to some distant
entity like Britain or France. Another choice has been made in the case of this thesis. There
exists no ‘comparative history of the exact sciences (or astronomy) in early-modern Russia,
Sweden and Denmark-Norway’. By exploring the contrasting stories of the eighteenth-century
Venus transit enterprise in the three Nordic powers, this thesis aims at forming a step in that
direction.2
Highlighting the impact of Central Europe and the European North necessitates a different
selection of primary sources than what is current in history of science nowadays. Language is
a case in point here. The history of science of Central Europe and the Nordic Countries offers
a wider spectrum of vernacular languages in terms of both primary sources and historiography
than does Western Europe. While it is true that use of German, Swedish, Danish and Russian
(not yet Finnish or Norwegian) for scientific publications had gained currency by the latter
half of the eighteenth century, it remains a fact that none of these languages were read to any
large extent in more westerly centres of learning. In the worlds of Maximilianus Hell and Pehr
Wargentin, it was Latin, alongside French, which was the only truly universal language for
scientific communication. And it worked. Thanks to the Latin language, it was possible for
them to communicate directly with the centres of science in Western Europe. In the
2
By ‘comparative’ I mean the kind of “contrasts of contexts” that are used to make the specific character of each
case stand out more clearly, as described in for example Skocpol & Somers 1980 (see also Kjeldstadli 1988).
-5-
historiography of eighteenth-century science, despite the importance of the Latin language to
international communication in the midst of the Age of Reason, Latin sources are often
neglected. By taking into account the Latin writings not only of Father Hell, but also of other
savants of international reputation such as Pehr Wargentin, Anders Johan Lexell, Roger
Boscovich, Christianus Mayer, Nevil Maskelyne and Jérôme de Lalande, this thesis will
hopefully constitute a small step towards a more complete picture of international astronomy
in the latter half of the eighteenth century. In brief, I hope to demonstrate that the study of
cutting-edge astronomy high on the international agenda, as manifested in the Venus transit
projects of 1761 and 1769, should not be reduced to the English and French writings that
emanated from the astronomical centres of London and Paris.
While this thesis does not adhere to a microstoria approach, neither is it universal in scope.
Rather it is ‘plurilocal’, in the sense that it compares how scientific activity in relation to the
Venus transits unfolded in the Habsburg lands, Denmark-Norway, Sweden and Russia. At the
same time, it examines how astronomical activity in those regions was perceived elsewhere;
that is, in France and Britain in particular. Participation from an individual like Maximilianus
Hell is here only one part of a broader picture, described in contemporaneous texts as the
Respublica litteraria, or ‘Republic of Letters’. The early-modern ideal of a Republic of
Letters implied that knowledge seeking should be a collaborative, supra-national and – in
terms of religious denomination – truly neutral undertaking. It is often claimed by historians
that this ideal was incapable of passing the test of reality. 3 And there is indeed no shortage of
examples of how national, political or confessional antagonisms have prevailed over real
collaboration in science. However, one may argue that the astronomical ‘sub-republic’ of the
wider, cross-disciplinary Republic of Letters offers especially intriguing material in this
respect. Astronomy is a branch of learning that has always been international in its very
nature, in the sense that most astronomical data sets are useless unless compared with
corresponding observations from other sites. A too narrow focus on a specific individual,
region or nation – or sources in just one or two vernaculars – runs the risk of missing that
fact.4 Hence the broader approach of the present analysis.
3
Examples of scholars arguing for a real ‘Republic of Letters’ during the eighteenth century are Daston 1991;
Bots & Waquet 1997 (in French); Boedecker 2002 (in German). Examples of scholars questioning the historical
reality of this ‘Republic’: Eskildsen 2005 and numerous contributions in Passeron (ed., 2008 [in French]).
4
It may be appropriate here to specify my use of the term ‘international’. Certain historians are inclined to define
this concept quite narrowly, using instead ‘cosmopolitan’ to designate the networks of early-modern – and
modern – astronomers (see for example Sörlin 1993; Ratcliff 2008). I do not find the distinction fruitful.
Accordingly, in this thesis ‘international’ is used quite broadly, as a means of describing contact or impact across
-6-
A final ambition of this study is more distinctly philological. By editing in a separate section
two central texts of Maximilianus Hell and presenting throughout numerous quotations from
texts in various languages and of a wide range of genres – scientific treatises, journal and
newspaper articles, official and private correspondence, even diaries – I hope to contribute to
the field of Neo-Latin philology itself.
For one thing, I have become convinced that Latin texts from the Age of Reason should be
studied alongside vernacular texts. To use Antiquity as an example: every student of Cicero or
Virgil is made immediately aware of the necessity to acquire at least a working knowledge of
Ancient Greek, simply because all Roman authors of the Classical Age related to the
Hellenistic world. Correspondingly, even though Father Hell preferred to use Latin for
producing scientific texts, his texts were part of a dialogue with other statements in German,
French and other Romance languages, which he read and heard on the streets of Vienna every
day. Thus, Neo-Latin text production in the period of European Enlightenment was just as
embedded in bilingual or even polyglot discourses as the classical Latin of Greco-Roman
Antiquity.
My other comment to Neo-Latin studies is more technical. I disagree with a modus operandi
that has many proponents among text editors, that one should standardise early-modern texts
in keeping with conventions that are followed for editions of Ancient texts. Instead of
emending the spelling, punctuation and typography to make a text look more familiar to the
eye that is used to the classical Latin of a Cicero or a Virgil, I plead the case that the
conventions of the autograph should be respected. While this choice perhaps appears
conventional to the historian who is used to work according to the motto ‘do not meddle with
your sources’, we shall see in a later part of this thesis that it is not as obvious to every
classical scholar (Chapter III.1). There is, however, a huge difference between an earlymodern author like Maximilianus Hell and the texts of Cicero and Virgil. In the latter case we
have no autographs, but are forced to take resort to transcripts dating from a much later age.
When editors of such material disregard the spelling and punctuation used by medieval
copyists and instead try to convert the text according to certain modern conventions, this is
perfectly legitimate. No one knows exactly how the authors of that ‘Golden Age’ wrote
borders, whether on a personal or official level. Brosche 2009b (in German) offers a succinct discussion of the
kind of ‘internationalism’ that is investigated in this thesis.
-7-
anyway. By contrast, for a writer like Father Hell, in whose hand numerous autograph
manuscripts are preserved, the situation is vastly different. It is not a good way of enhancing
our appreciation for Neo-Latin philology as a field of study in its own right to make an earlymodern text look like a twenty first-century edition of Cicero.
I.1.1 HISTORIOGRAPHY AND FURTHER OUTLINING OF AIMS AND SCOPE
The contributions of Maximilianus Hell to the eighteenth-century efforts to calculate the size
of the solar system is treated in various scholarly discourses. For the sake of convenience,
four such discourses may be singled out. The present investigation will seek to contribute to
all four discourses, and they will therefore be described in some detail here.
First and foremost, the story of Hell’s expedition figures invariably in historical accounts of
the transits of Venus. A great deal of literature on this topic has been published in recent years,
particularly since the Venus transits became the object of a renewed historical interest as the
first transit since more than a century took place in 2004. Studies of the history of Jesuit
science make up another discourse in which at least the name of Maximilianus Hell can be
found. A third discourse is works on the history of astronomy in Nordic or Central-European
countries, as well as general histories of science and learning in these countries, where the
court astronomer of Maria Theresa is a frequent ingredient. And last but not least,
biographical studies of the life and career of Maximilianus Hell naturally describe his famous
expedition and the debates that it entailed. Historical accounts of the Vardø expedition as
such, whether it is told from a local historian’s point of view or with a view to analyse some
aspect of the scientific investigations undertaken in its course, may also be labelled as part of
this biographical interest.
Despite a general awareness of Maximilianus Hell’s expedition among historians of early
modern science, no comprehensive study of the sources has been undertaken for more than
fifty years. Instead, drawing upon the same, late nineteenth- or early twentieth-century
literature and slighting the primary sources, recent storytelling tends to follow exactly the
same, ‘hagiographic’ pattern, which may be summarised thus:
1) A highly qualified Jesuit astronomer was invited to travel to faraway Lapland
on behalf of the Danish King; 2) He succeeded to observe the transit of Venus,
but was wrongly accused of having cheated because he was a member of the
-8-
Society of Jesus; 3) He was freed from these accusations by an American
astronomer named Simon Newcomb, and this is where the story ends.
This pattern is recognisable in all major books on the transits of Venus that have been
published in English during the last fifty years or so, namely Harry Woolf (1959), Eli Maor
(2000) and David Sellers (2001), as well as numerous international articles.5 Important
biographical reference works, like the Dictionary of Scientific Biography (vol. VII, 1973) or
the more recent Biographical Encyclopedia of Astronomers (vol. I, 2007), also recount the
same story,6 as do several biographical articles and book chapters covering Maximilianus
Hell. Moreover, studies of Jesuit science tend to repeat it, witness for example the influential
works of Agustín Udías (2003) or Mordechai Feingold (2003).7 Accounts of Hell’s expedition
as such usually follow in the same vein, without presenting new sources or more balanced
conclusions. Over the following pages, I shall attempt to draw a broader picture of the state of
knowledge as seen in all the scholarly contexts mentioned.
I.1.1.1 STUDIES OF THE TRANSITS OF VENUS AS SUCH
What do we know about the Venus transits of the eighteenth century? As mentioned, two
transits took place in that century, in 1761 and 1769, and both were associated with a
considerable degree of interest. Activities in various countries have been explored by scholars
over the last half-century, beginning with the impressive survey by the US American historian
of science Harry Woolf (1923-2003), The Transits of Venus. A Study of Eighteenth-Century
Science (1959). Originally a doctoral thesis defended at Cornell University in 1955, it was
revised and published by Princeton University Press four years later, and remains
indispensible to this day.8 More recent monographs and conference proceedings by Eli Maor
(2000), David Sellers (2001), Peter Aughton (2004), Jean Eudes Arlot & Jean-Pierre Luminet
(in French, 2004), Christophe Marlot (in French, 2004), William Sheehan & John Westfall
5
Woolf, The transits of Venus. A study of eighteenth-century science 1959, pp. 176-179; Maor June 8, 2004:
Venus in Transit 2000, pp. 126-133; Sellers, The Transit of Venus. The Quest to find the True Distance of the
Sun 2001, pp. 140-144. The French monographs of Jean Eudes Arlot & Jean-Pierre Luminet, Le passage de
Vénus 2004, p. 19 and Christophe Marlot, Les passages de Vénus. Histoire et observation d’un phénomène
astronomique 2004, p. 168 are exceptions to this rule in that they merely mention that Hell was sent to Vardø
without pursuing the story further. For details of individual articles, see the introduction to chapter II.3.
6
Ferrari d’Occhieppo in Gillispie (ed.), vol. VII (1973), pp. 233-235; László Szabados in Hockey et al. (eds.),
vol. I (2007), pp. 519-520.
7
Udías 2003, pp. 28-29; Feingold 2003, p. 1.
8
Woolf has also published at least two shorter works on the same topic (Woolf 1953 and 1962 [in French]). The
latter work reiterates much of the same material as the dissertation, but focuses especially on how the transits of
Venus functioned as a vehicle for disseminating scientific knowledge in eighteenth-century France. For Woolf’s
biography, see Kargon 2003.
-9-
(2004), Don Kurtz (ed., 2005), David Aubin (ed., in French and English, 2007) and Jessica
Ratcliff (2008) provide additional information on the transits that took place before and after
the eighteenth century, but as regards the 1760s they include no fundamentally new
information or conclusions that are not already present in Woolf’s book. Given its status as a
classic in its field, a brief assessment of the achievements and shortcomings of The Transits of
Venus may be worthwhile.
Woolf’s monograph is universal in scope. Its boundaries are temporal rather than spatial; it is
‘the book’ about virtually ‘everything’ that took place in the eighteenth century in conjunction
with the transits of Venus. It should be said that Woolf did have models to draw upon, mainly
Johann Franz Encke’s Die Entfernung der Sonne von der Erde aus dem Venusdurchgange von
1761 hergeleitet (‘The Distance of the Sun from the Earth as Deduced from the Venus Transit
of 1761’, 1822) and the same author’s Der Venusdurchgang von 1769 als Fortsetzung der
Abhandlung über die Entfernung der Sonne von der Erde (‘The Venus Transit of 1769.
A Sequel to the Treatise on the Distance of the Sun from the Earth’, 1824), as well as Richard
Proctor’s The Transits of Venus. A Popular Account (1875) and Simon Newcomb’s long
article, “Discussion of Observations of the Transits of Venus in 1761 and 1769” (1890).
However, Woolf’s contribution was pioneering in the sense that it was the first synthesis to be
undertaken by a professional historian of science, basing himself on a variety of primary
sources from the eighteenth century. It is also distinctly historical, since he takes into account
a whole range of institutional, ideological and political contexts of relevance to Venus transit
activities in various countries, something none of his predecessors had emphasised. As Jessica
Ratcliffe puts it, Woolf’s study was even conceived “in an almost Kuhnian sense”, despite the
fact that it antedates Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) by several
years.9 Even so, as a global study of ‘everything’ it has its limitations. The archives visited by
Woolf are confined to France, England and the United States of America, and
contemporaneous publications from those countries dominate the printed sources he has
placed under scrutiny as well. France and Britain were the Great Powers of eighteenth-century
astronomy, no doubt, and when the international picture was to be drawn, this was the
obvious place to start. His choice of sources has nonetheless, as I hope to demonstrate,
resulted in a rather too strong predominance for Anglo-French perspectives. Activities in
other regions, including the Nordic countries and Central Europe, are described by Woolf in a
9
Ratcliff 2008, p. 19.
- 10 -
much more cursory, at times even downright sloppy, manner. However, these are precisely
the regions that are fundamental for our understanding of the career of Maximilianus Hell.
Admittedly, Woolf does mention activities in Central and Nordic Europe as well, and such
observations as he has been able to track down, he has entered in his much-quoted tables of
successful Venus transit observations from all over the world in 1761 and 1769. However,
when it comes to details of observations as well as the broader picture of the history of
astronomy in the regions in question, Woolf’s account is not satisfactory. Unfortunately,
historical studies of the transits of Venus that have been published in English or French in
recent years have strengthened, rather than weakened, the notion that virtually every step of
international significance to the eighteenth-century Venus transit projects was taken by the
French and British academies and societies of science. As I shall argue presently, this notion
should not remain unchallenged.
The Vardø expedition took Maximilianus Hell from the metropolis of the Habsburg Empire
through the present-day Czech Republic, Germany, Denmark, Norway and parts of Sweden to
his destination in north-easternmost Norway. Apart from that, Hell’s entire life was spent in
ecclesiastical and erudite circles in territories that are now known as Slovakia, Hungary,
Romania and Austria. He was educated – and taught – at Jesuit schools and academic
institutions in these parts of the Habsburg lands, and remained a loyal supporter of the Society
of Jesus even after its suppression in 1773. From 1755 to his death in 1792, he kept the
position as court astronomer of the successive rulers Maria Theresa, Joseph II and Leopold II
in Vienna. As regards the transits of Venus, Father Hell delivered a strong contribution even
in 1761, as we shall see in chapter II.1 below. His educational background and his networks
as a member of the Jesuit order no doubt had a decisive impact on his achievement in that
year. And when it comes to the transit taking place eight years later, his interaction with
amateur and professional astronomers in the Scandinavian countries was equally important, as
will be demonstrated in chapter II.3. The Nordic, Central and Eastern parts of Europe are thus
the geographical areas of principal interest for the present thesis, and the scientific networks
of the Jesuit order constitute the core institutional, ideological and even political basis for
Hell’s scientific career. Unfortunately, this is where neither Woolf nor any of his successors
have much to offer.
- 11 -
In search of information on what took place in the regions in question, it is necessary to turn
to publications not only in English and French, but also in German, Hungarian, Slovak,
Swedish, Finnish, Danish, Norwegian and Russian, many of which do not contain the words
“Venus transit” or “solar parallax” in their titles. I cannot boast of possessing the full
overview here, and the risk of having missed out important scholarly work is always present.
However, in order to get a sense of the regional contexts of relevance to Father Hell’s work,
one is simply obliged to attempt to widen the scope beyond the Anglo-French historiography
of the Venus transits as such. First, the status of knowledge on the (mainly Jesuit and CentralEuropean) setting of Hell’s work in conjunction with the 1761 transit of Venus needs to be
assessed, before we proceed to the (mainly non-Catholic and Nordic) setting of his work on
the transit of 1769. I shall thereupon turn to the overall picture of Maximilianus Hell’s life and
career, including the various scientific activities undertaken during his expedition, as drawn in
scholarly literature.
I.1.1.2 STUDIES OF JESUIT SCIENCE OF RELEVANCE TO THE EIGHTEENTHCENTURY TRANSITS OF VENUS
It is now widely recognised that the Society of Jesus as a whole constituted a major factor in
the development of the mathematical sciences in Catholic Europe, in both the seventeenth and
the eighteenth centuries. Astronomy was among its prime interests. The notion that Jesuit
science in general was backward-looking and resilient to new insights, as seen in famous
anecdotes of Jesuits spearheading resistance against the Copernican worldview and bringing
about the condemnation of Galileo in the early seventeenth century, has in recent decades
given way to a more balanced picture of the teaching and research activities of the Society of
Jesus.
A brief glance at some pieces of quantitative evidence can be illustrative. The historically
oriented geophysicist Agustín Udías, himself a member of the Jesuit order, in 2003 published
an ambitious survey of Jesuit observatories in the ‘Old Society’ (that is, the period from the
foundation of the order in the 1530s until its suppression in 1773). Udías here concludes that
about 30 of the 120-odd astronomical observatories that existed world-wide in 1773, had been
established by Jesuits.10 A large proportion of these observatories were located within the so-
10
Udías 2003, espec. pp. 1-2.
- 12 -
called ‘German Assistancy’, that is, precisely the administrative division of the Society in
which Hell’s influence was most noticeable.
Another kind of statistics has been provided by the prominent historian of Jesuit science
Steven J. Harris, who has studied the rate of publication of scientific works by Jesuit (and exJesuit) authors in the entire period from 1560 to 1800. His statistics demonstrate a rapid
growth in the number of such publications starting in the 1730s and 1740s and culminating
soon after the suppression of the order in 1773 (after which year quite a few former Jesuits
nonetheless continued to publish scientific works). Again, the German Assistancy emerges as
an important factor in what Harris describes as a “dramatic revival of Jesuit scientific
activity” in the period in question.11
Book historians have pointed to the same trend. The German book historian Reinhard
Wittmann, in a programmatic article on the need for research into Jesuit printing and
publishing activity in the early modern period, states that “no other order has attributed such a
prominent status to the printed word as have the Jesuits”.12 Although a detailed analysis of
Jesuit printing and publishing in the Habsburg lands is to my knowledge still pending,13 it
seems safe to conclude that the increased number of scientific publications issued by Jesuits
around the mid-eighteenth century reflects an increase in scientific activity ‘on the ground’,
be it in dusty libraries, in sizzling laboratories or lofty observatories.
It is well documented that Father Hell personally contributed to the construction of new
observatories within the German Assistancy. And as the main editor of the almanac-journal
Ephemerides (Astronomicae) ad Meridinianum Vindobonensem for 35 years, he included in
the form of supplements (appendices) a vast amount of data sets and theoretical expositions
written either by himself or by fellow Jesuit astronomers. He even published separately (in
1768) a two-volume collection of astronomical observations made by Jesuits in China in the
entire period from 1717 to 1752. His career, then, fits well to the increase in scientific
activity, at least among Jesuits in the Habsburg lands, that took place during his lifetime.
11
Harris 1993, here p. 530; cf. Harris 1996 and 1999. All three works appear to be relating to his PhD
dissertation, Jesuit Ideology and Jesuit Science: Religious Values and Scientific Activity in the Society of Jesus,
1540-1773 (University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1988), which I have not seen.
12
Wittmann 2000, p. 1: “Kein anderer Orden hat dem gedruckten Wort einen so herausragenden Stellenwert
beigemessen wie die Jesuiten”.
13
At least no such publication is listed in Johannes Frimmel’s thorough survey of research into the field of
history of books in Austria (2011).
- 13 -
For the broader picture of Jesuit science in the period, numerous studies that have been
published in recent years are of relevance.14 For example, the outstanding anthologies The
Jesuits (1999) and The Jesuits II (2006), edited by John W. O’Malley in collaboration with
the above-mentioned Harris and other scholars, contain several articles on the history of Jesuit
science in early modern Europe. Particularly useful to grasp the general institutional
framework for Jesuit science is Harris’ own “Mapping Jesuit Science” in the first of these
volumes. Another fundamental work providing overviews of teaching and research by Jesuit
professors in the mathematical sciences in the German, French and Italian assistancies as well
as north-eastern parts of the Continent has been provided by Karl Adolf Franz Fischer
(catalogues published 1978, 1983 and 1984). However, Fischer does not venture beyond a
mere catalogue of ‘who were active where and when’, essential though that it is.
Despite my decision to use it in the subtitle of this thesis, I find the tag ‘Jesuit science’
somewhat problematic in the case of an astronomer firmly integrated in the European
Republic of Letters. On the one hand, Hell collaborated closely with several other Jesuit
astronomers. Thus, close collaboration between Hell and the Hungarian Jesuit Franciscus
Weiss has been demonstrated in the works of the Hungarian authors Ferenc Pinzger (two
volumes, published 1920-1927) and Magda Vargha (two volumes, 1990-1992), and the
equally important co-operation between Hell and the Jesuit Josephus Stepling in Prague has
recently been studied by the Czech astronomers Josef Smolka and Martin Šolc (2008).15 On
the other hand, as Imperial and Royal Astronomer of Vienna, Father Hell did not confine
himself to cooperation with and publication of the observations of his confrères. Thus, the
historically oriented astronomer Konradin Ferrari d’Occhieppo (1907-2007) has described
Maximilianus Hell and his contemporary, the Benedictine abbot Placidus Fixlmillner of the
Cremifanum (Kremsmünster) Monastery, as “the founders of modern astronomy in Austria”.
The two even cooperated closely, he points out in an article published in 1957.16 The
correspondence of Fixlmillner and Hell has since then been edited by the late director of the
14
Apart from examples mentioned elsewhere in this chapter, I should like to point to the studies of the role of
Jesuits in the transfer of learning between Europe and Asia by Antonella Romano 2000 and 2005; Harris 2005;
Catherine Jami 2004. See also the review article of Ditchfield 2007.
15
See also the study of Zdenĕk Horský (1970), who singles out his contacts with Weiss, Fixlmillner and Stepling
as especially important to Hell’s scientific career.
16
Ferrari d’Occhieppo 1957, article subtitled “Die Begründer der neueren Astronomie in Österreich”.
- 14 -
Kremsmünster Observatory, Father Ansgar Rabenalt (1911-1994), whose work corroborates
the conclusions drawn by Ferrari d’Occhieppo.17
‘Central Europe’ poses another problem. I use it for the former Kingdom of Hungary and
Austria proper, more or less as a synonym for the Provincia Austriae of the Jesuit order.
However, the word “Austria” can also be used in a less restricted sense, to extend to the entire
Habsburg Empire.18 Hell’s collaboration with numerous other astronomers both within the
Habsburg lands and beyond, emerges from the letters edited by Pinzger in the 1920s and
Vargha in the 1990s. In a recent article, I have analysed the contacts between Hell and French
astronomers, in particular Jérôme de Lalande (in French, 2010). However, none of the works
mentioned analyses how Father Hell’s – mainly Jesuit – network influenced his role in the
Venus transit project of 1761, during which year he stayed in Vienna. Harry Woolf, for his
part, mentions Maximilianus Hell as one of the most “distinguished names” in a “Germanspeaking group” of Venus transit observers in 1761, but says nothing about Hell’s activities as
a ‘networker’, actively encouraging, coordinating and publishing the observations of others,
both within the Habsburg empire and beyond.19 The term “German-speaking group”,
furthermore, does not render justice to the multi-linguistic Kingdom of Hungary, which – as
we shall see – remained important to Hell’s identity throughout his life.
No other study that I am aware of has analysed the extent to which Father Hell and other
Central-European Jesuits were integrated in the international Venus transit projects of the
1760s. Chapter II.1 of this thesis, on ‘The 1761 Transit of Venus and the Role of
Maximilianus Hell’, aims to fill that gap in the literature.
I.1.1.3
STUDIES OF THE NORDIC COUNTRIES AND THE EIGHTEENTH-
CENTURY TRANSITS OF VENUS
With the Vardø expedition of 1768-70 Maximilianus Hell entered for a while the service of
the King of Denmark and Norway, conducting prestigious observations on behalf of this
sovereign. He also entered a region, namely ‘Lapland’, as the northernmost parts of Fenno-
17
Rabenalt 1986. Extracts of several of these letters were edited already by Pinzger 1927 (cf. Unprinted Sources,
1a and 1b), but Rabenalt appears to have been unaware of that publication.
18
See Klingenstein 1997 for an illuminating discussion of the shifting historical meanings of the word
Österreich (‘Austria’).
19
See Section II.1.5 for details.
- 15 -
scandia were called. This region was ideally suited for observations of the transit of 1769
because that transit was to take place during the middle of the night, meaning that the
Midnight Sun facilitated the observation. The same region was, however, divided between
three states: the Kingdom of Denmark and Norway, the Kingdom of Sweden (including
modern Finland) and the Empire of Russia. These entities will for the sake of convenience be
referred to as ‘Nordic’ countries in the present thesis.20 As we shall see, scientific societies in
all the Nordic states participated in the Venus transit projects of 1761 and 1769. In the latter
year, the three powers in fact organised observational attempts at several sites in northernmost
Fennoscandia, Father Hell’s Vardø being merely one out of eight Nordic-sponsored sites of
observation in the region. In addition, two sites near the North Cape, that is, within DanishNorwegian territory, were covered by the Royal Society of London. There are few studies
focusing on activities relating to the transits of Venus in this part of the world.
As was the case for the Jesuit context, we must approach the Nordic countries and their role in
the eighteenth-century Venus transit projects from an indirect angle, by asking: what can be
said about the present state of knowledge concerning the history of astronomy in the Nordic
countries in the latter half of the eighteenth century?
Books covering the history of astronomy (or science in general) in single countries, as well as
histories of national academies and societies of science, provide convenient starting points for
an overall understanding of the period in question. National participation in the Venus transit
projects are frequently mentioned in such works, albeit rarely in the detail required for a case
study like the present one.
For the source-based investigation of Danish-Norwegian astronomy two works merit
particular mention. First, the five-volume ‘History of the Royal Danish Society of Sciences’
by Asger Lomholt (in Danish, 1942-1973) and second, the three-volume ‘Four Hundred Years
of Danish Astronomy’ by Claus Thykier, Kjeld Gyldenkerne and Per Barner Darnell (in
Danish, 1990). For the latter work Mr Darnell has written a brief chapter summarising Danish
participation in the Venus transit projects of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries,21 and the
Venus transit projects are described elsewhere in these multi-volume works as well. However,
drawing largely upon national rather than international literature, these contributions do not
20
21
See the introduction to chapter II.2 for a discussion of the terms Lapland, Fennoscandia and Nordic countries.
Darnell in Thykier et al. vol. II (1990), pp. 251-253.
- 16 -
deliver adjustments of the current state of knowledge of the Venus transit projects seen as
international campaigns – Woolf’s book is for example not mentioned at all among their
references. Instead, the ‘Four Hundred Years of Danish Astronomy’ as well as Lomholt’s
history of the Danish Royal Society are firmly placed within their national historiographical
context, in the sense that they are hardly concerned with comparison with scientific activities
in other countries.22
A more internationally oriented history of the Royal Danish Society of Sciences (which in
later years has preferred to call itself an Academy) has been written by the Danish professor
of history of science Olaf Pedersen, published as Lovers of Learning (1992). Here, the Venus
transit activities of Denmark-Norway are briefly analysed in their international setting. The
academic value of this work is, however, detracted by the absence of an apparatus of
references to primary sources.23 An equally internationally oriented line of analysis is
followed in the more recent Dansk Naturvidenskabs Historie (‘History of Danish Science’),
the second volume of which covers the period 1730-1850 and has been edited by the prolific
Danish historian of science, Helge Kragh (2005). For this volume, Kragh has written a chapter
that includes an account of Venus transit expeditions organised from Denmark.24 Although
both Pedersen and Kragh display magisterial knowledge of the main developments of
European science in the period, a knowledge they are capable of disseminating in a readable
form, their accounts of the Danish (including Norwegian) Venus transit activities are not
flawless. Some important activities have been left out of the story, and certain significant
bibliographical details are plainly wrong.25
22
Thus, Darnell in his chapter treats the ‘foreplay’ to the Danish Venust transit observations by pointing to the
works of Kepler (1629) and Halley (1716), but here the international orientation ends, and we find no
comparisons with the activities in other countries in the years the Venus transits actually took place.
23
See the chapter “Measuring the Country” in Pedersen 1992, pp. 89-104, espec. pp. 102-104.
24
Kragh 2005, chapter 6. There is also an English, one-volume version of the entire work, with the title Science
in Denmark. A Thousand Year History (Aarhus University Press, 2007). I have not had access to that version.
25
Thus, Pedersen claims that Hell’s Venus transit report “had to be translated into Danish before it could appear
in the Writings [i.e., the Skrifter of the Danish Society of Sciences]. His original Latin version appeared
separately at Vienna in 1770 and was sent to Lalande, who complained of the delay […]” (Pedersen 1992, pp.
103-104). The first edition (Hell 1770a1) was in fact published in Latin in Copenhagen in February 1770,
whereas both the Danish translation (Hell 1770a3) and the Viennese edition (Hell 1770a4) appeared several
months later. It was the late arrival of the editio princeps that Lalande complained about, not the Viennese
edition. Kragh, for his part, claims that the Royal Astronomer Christian Horrebow played no part whatsoever in
the Venus transit project of 1769 and leaves the impression that Hell’s was the only Danish-sponsored
expedition in northern Norway that year (Kragh 2005, pp. 218-219). This is not correct. Horrebow did try to
observe the event from Rundetårn, and he even delivered an oral report “on the not observed transit of Venus”
for the Royal Society in Copenhagen 6 April 1770 (Sajnovics’ travel diary, 6 April 1770 [WUS Vienna]: “in
Societate prælegit Horrebow de non observato Transitu Veneris”; cf. Royal Danish Society of Sciences,
‘Protocoll 1742-1770’, p. 333 [KDVS Copenhagen]). He also arranged, after some hesitance, for his younger
brother Peder Horrebow to be dispatched on an official expedition to Tromsø. Even though P. Horrebow made it
- 17 -
In Norway, there was also a Society of Sciences, based in Trondheim, the northernmost town
of Denmark-Norway at the time. The Trondheim Society, which was established in 1760 and
granted a Royal epithet in 1767, has had its history described in a recent work in English by
Håkon With Andersen, Brita Brenna, Magne Njåstad & Astrid Wale, Aemula Lauri: The
Royal Norwegian Society of Sciences and Letters, 1760-2010 (2009).26 However, astronomy
was never a main issue in the early history of this Society, whose founding fathers focused on
natural history, agriculture and history. Thus, although earlier works on the history of the
Trondheim Society include some material from Hell’s expedition, those documents are not
concerned with the astronomical programme of the expedition.27
When turning to the history of Swedish (including Finnish) astronomy, works of amongst
others the prominent professors of history of science Sten Lindroth (1914-1980) and Sven
Widmalm provide good vantage points, as do the pioneering works of Nils Victor Emanuel
Nordenmark (1862-1967) and the more recent contributions by Päivi Maria Pihlaja and
Mathias Persson.
In the third volume of his grand synthesis Svensk Lärdomshistoria (‘History of Swedish
Learning’), Lindroth treats the period from 1719 to 1772, or the so-called ‘Age of Freedom’
in Swedish history (Frihetstiden, 1978). All institutions of science and higher education in the
entire expansion of the Swedish realm are described, including the Royal Swedish Academy
in Stockholm and its secretary, the above-mentioned astronomer Pehr Wargentin. In fact,
Wargentin’s international network and his decisive role in the Swedish participation in
international research projects, including the transits of Venus, are among the topics treated at
length in Lindroth’s book. The same author had already treated Wargentin and the Venus
transits in the first volume of his ‘History of the Swedish Academy of Science’ (in Swedish,
1967), although the wider scope of the ‘Swedish Learning’ furnishes the reader with an even
broader picture of the period.
no further than Dønnes, this place is still within the region of North Norway. Besides, the Copenhagen professor
Kratzenstein travelled to Trondheim where he unfortunately failed to observe the transit due to clouds (see
chapter II.2 for details).
26
In this work, Brita Brenna has written the chapter on the eighteenth century. See also her article “Dilettantism
and Discipline: The learned milieu around the establishment of the Royal Norwegian Society of Sciences” (in
Norwegian, 2011) and Monica Aase & Mikael Hård, “‘The Norwegian Athens’: Trondheim as a town of
learning during the second half of the eighteenth century” (in Swedish, 1998).
27
See especially the works of Ove Dahl on the founding father Gunnerus, published 1892-1911.
- 18 -
Sven Widmalm investigates the history of geodesy in Sweden in the entire period from 1695
to 1860 in his doctoral thesis Mellan kartan och verkligheten (‘In-Between Map and Reality’,
in Swedish, 1990). No survey could of course be undertaken without astronomical knowledge,
and Widmalm in his thesis explores at length the international orientation of Swedish
astronomers, a topic that he has later pursued in a particularly condensed way in his study
A Commerce of Letters (originally printed as a report in 1991, then edited for publication in
Science Studies, 1992). Here, Widmalm analyses the international correspondence of Swedish
astronomers throughout the eighteenth century, exemplified by the characters Celsius,
Wargentin, Melanderhielm and Svanberg. Informal though it may seem, the frequent
exchange of letters between Wargentin and his peers was crucial for establishing Sweden as a
major player in international astronomy in the latter half of the eighteenth century.
Päivi Maria Pihlaja, who defended her doctoral thesis on ‘Science under the Polar Star:
Northern Research and the Contacts between the Swedish Academy of Sciences and France
during the Eighteenth Century’ in 2009 (in Finnish), has studied the contacts between
Swedish researchers and the Académie Royale des Sciences in Paris.28 Although astronomy is
merely one of a series of subjects that are studied by Pihlaja, her contributions are valuable
starting points for our understanding of the Venus transit campaigns in eighteenth-century
Sweden, seen in an international context.
Whereas Pihlaja focuses on the Swedish relationship with the leading scientific body of
France, Mathias Persson in his doctoral thesis ‘The Proximate Other: Swedish Erudition and
Politics in a German Journal, 1753-1792’ (in Swedish, 2009) investigates how Swedish
science and politics was portrayed in the leading German scientific journal, the Göttingische
Anzeigen von gelehrten Sachen. In general, the ‘foreignness’ of Sweden was neither
exoticised nor denigrated, Persson concludes. Rather, eighteenth-century Sweden was
portrayed as a closely related scientific culture that in many ways resembled that of the highly
successful University of Göttingen.29
28
Lacking knowledge of Finnish, my sense of Pihlaja’s thesis has primarily been acquired from personal
communication as well as from a review by Peter Stadius (in Swedish, 2010). However, her articles 2005a (in
English), 2005b (in English) and 2006 (in Swedish) are all noteworthy.
29
In the vein of Persson, Ingemar Oscarsson (2011) has traced the presence of Swedish science in various
international journals, in particular the Journal des Savants.
- 19 -
For his above-mentioned history of the Royal Academy of Science in Stockholm (1967),
Lindroth covered much of the same ground as Pihlaja and Persson, albeit in less detail. His
conclusion was that contacts with German-speaking regions and France were particularly
important to the Stockholm Academy in the eighteenth century, whereas contacts with Britain
and Russia played only minor roles.30 This impression has been corroborated by Widmalm,
who concludes that “[in] the case of Swedish astronomers, their internationalism favoured
participation in French and German but not British networks of communication”.31
What about the history of astronomy in Russia, arguably the third Nordic power of the
eighteenth century? Articles and miscellaneous works apart, the best available survey of the
history of Russian science in a western language is probably Alexander Vucinich’s (19142002) Science in Russian Culture (two volumes, 1963-1970). A professor of sociology and
anthropology at San Jose State College in the USA at the time he began this work, Vucinich
drew upon his advantages as a Russian-speaking scholar in a western academic milieu when
analysing the plight of various institutions, disciplines and individuals in the field of science
in eighteenth-century Russia. Unfortunately, astronomy as a discipline is not emphasised by
Vucinich, and the Venus transits are mentioned only in passing. Worse still, of a total of three
Venus transit expeditions organised by the academy of St. Petersburg in the year 1761, and
eight in 1769, Vucinich mentions only the ones made by Stepan Rumovskii in each year.32
And while Vucinich does describe the numerous natural history expeditions undertaken in the
eighteenth century at some length, he fails to mention that several of these came about as a
direct result of the Venus transit enterprise of 1769. This does not render Vucinich’s work
irrelevant for the present thesis, however, for he does provide a valuable survey of the broader
cultural context of Russian science in the eighteenth century.
The first volume of the ‘History of the Russian Academy of Sciences’ edited by Konstantin
Vasil’evich Ostrovitianov (in Russian, 1958), provides a more detailed account of the Venus
transit activities of the St. Petersburg academy in both 1761 and 1769. However, with its
strong nationalistic bias this publication underestimates the international collaboration
involved and grossly overestimates the roles played by the Russian-speaking academicians
30
Lindroth 1967, vol. I, pp. 167-208.
Widmalm 1991, pp. 8-13, here p. 13.
32
Vucinich 1964, p. 148.
31
- 20 -
Lomonosov and Rumovskii.33 A more balanced picture is drawn in other general works, such
as the brilliant Russia in the Age of Enlightenment by Erich Donnert (1986), although the
Venus transits are not treated at any length in that book.
Thus, ‘big histories’ covering the history of astronomy or general science in specific countries
are indeed helpful. For more empirically detailed accounts, however, it is necessary to turn to
other kinds of scholarly works. In-depth studies of individual savants count among these.
Again, I cannot claim to have grasped anything near the full picture of what is at hand, and
shall have to limit myself to a few works that have proven themselves especially valuable.
These are Nils Victor Emanuel Nordenmark’s biography of the above-mentioned Pehr
Wilhelm Wargentin (in Swedish, 1939); Michel Mervaud’s introduction to his edition of
Chappe d’Auteroche’s Voyage en Sibérie (in French, 2004); Georges Dulac’s article on
Johann Albrecht Euler’s period as secretary of the Imperial Academy in St. Petersburg (in
French, 2000); and Alexander Moutchnik’s doctoral thesis on the Jesuit Christianus Mayer,
who visited St Petersburg in 1769 (in German, 2006). In sum, these studies provide a good
framework for a clearer understanding of the degree of integration of Nordic scientific
milieux in the international Venus transit projects of the 1760s.
With the exception of a recent article in Norwegian by the author of this thesis,34 no
comparative analysis of Venus transit activities in the Nordic countries has been made until
now. Studies of the history of science in the region in question tend to focus on a single
country and its relations with major European powers, not to engage in inter-Nordic
comparison.35 As I shall argue, the Venus transit campaigns appear to be highly suitable for
precisely that comparative approach.
Chapter II.2 will outline in detail the shortcomings of the predominant historiography of the
transits of Venus as far as the Nordic countries are concerned. It would be harsh to blame
Harry Woolf and other historians from the Cold War era for their limited knowledge of the
history of Nordic science. As for Russia, the archives held by the Soviet Union were at that
33
See Ostrovitianov (ed.) 1958, espec. pp. 220-221 & 357-362. I am indebted to Kari Aga Myklebost for
translating this and other Russian texts for me. As for the peculiar blending of nationalism with communist
ideology in Stalinist historiography of science, see for example Kragh 1987, p. 110 (with references).
34
Aspaas, ‘The Contributions of Nordic Amateur Astronomers to the Venus Transit Projects of 1761 and 1769’
(in Norwegian) 2011a.
35
In addition to Pihlaja 2009 on Sweden vis-à-vis France and Persson 2009 on Sweden vis-à-vis Germany, one
might mention a range of similar studies for Russian relations with the West in the Enlightenment period. To
quote but one, the set of articles edited by Conrad Grau et al. 1997 contains many fine examples.
- 21 -
time largely inaccessible to western scholars. Furthermore, the available historiography was
mainly available in Russian only, whereas the principal primary sources were either in Latin,
Russian or German. Turning to Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland, the western historian
was faced with the challenge of sources and secondary literature in the Scandinavian
languages in addition to Latin and German. None of the languages mentioned seem to have
been understood, or at least read to any large extent, by either Woolf or subsequent Angloand Francophone Venus transit historians.
There appears to be a need for a comparative study, placing the Venus transit activities in
Nordic and Central Europe in perspective. No downgrade of the ground-breaking
achievement of Harry Woolf is called for. Rather, one should attempt to shift the focus away
from those Great Powers of European intellectual history for a while, without forgetting that
they were precisely that. By reading texts in other languages than French and English and by
tracing activities in other centres of learning besides the Académie Royale des Sciences of
Paris and the Royal Society of London, we might arrive at a more nuanced and truly ‘global’
vision of the history of the eighteenth-century transits of Venus. At least that is the aim of part
II of this thesis.
I.1.1.4 STUDIES OF THE LIFE AND CAREER OF MAXIMILIANUS HELL
The life and career of Maximilianus Hell fills a long chapter in this thesis (I.2), with its own
historiographical remarks. Here, only a few strains in the predominant depictions of his career
will be sketched out. An apologetic Hungarian-Jesuit strain, as represented by Ferenc Pinzger,
will be described first. Then follow the contributions of the USA-based historian of science
George Sarton, the Dane Axel V. Nielsen, the Norwegian Helge Kragemo, and – far more
cursory – a selection of Austrian, Slovak, Hungarian, German, Hungarian and Romanian
contributions.
A fundamental, source-based study of Hell’s biography was undertaken by a Hungarian Jesuit
by the name Ferenc Pinzger, teacher at the High School in Pécs, in the first quarter of the
twentieth century. The main result of his study was published by the Hungarian Academy of
Sciences as Hell Miksa Emlékezete (‘In Memory of Maximilianus Hell’), in two volumes,
1920-1927. The first volume, which is entirely in Hungarian (apart from quotations in other
languages), treats Hell’s career with special emphasis on the Vardø expedition, drawing upon
- 22 -
his entire printed œuvre in addition to letters and other manuscript sources preserved in
official archives in Vienna, Copenhagen and Budapest, as well as in the monasteries of
Kremsmünster and Pannonhalma. The second volume presents transcriptions from altogether
74 letters in Latin, German and French accompanied by extracts from the Latin travel diary
that Hell’s assistant Joannes Sajnovics kept during the Vardø expedition. There is also a
German summary at the end of that volume.
The manuscripts edited by Pinzger illustrate the many-sided research interests of Father Hell
and offer glimpses of his close collaboration (in the form of frequent correspondence) with
leading astronomers in various parts of the Habsburg Empire, Denmark-Norway and France.
Pinzger’s depiction of Hell’s scientific career is, however, firmly rooted in what we might call
an apologetic or even hagiographic tradition. His work indeed constitutes, from beginning to
end, a passionate vindication of Father Hell. Thus, Pinzger claims to have found “modesty,
steadfastness in trouble, well-doing” to be characteristic traits of the personality of his
biographee, and adds to this his “love of his country”.36 Furthermore, Hell’s many-sided
scientific theories and experiments are extolled as ingenious and ahead of their time, even in
cases where leading scientists of Pinzger’s own generation had arrived at contradictory
results.37 Such a line of argument might seem rather odd today, but it no doubt reflects
Pinzger’s background both as a Jesuit and a Hungarian.
The nineteenth century has been described as “the golden age of literary Jesuitphobia”,
involving politicians, historians and littérateurs in most countries of Europe.38 In order to
remedy this situation, Jesuits of the ‘New Society’ (that is, the restored Society of Jesus in
existence since 1814) began publishing original documents, bibliographies, biographical
studies and other genres of historical writings covering all epochs of the history of the ‘Old
Society’. The biography of Pinzger clearly belongs to this process of vindication. His work
was furthermore undertaken in an age still characterised by nationalistic historiography in
36
Pinzger 1927, Deutsche Zusammenfassung, pp. 10-11: “Bescheidenheit, Standhaftigkeit in Schwierigkeiten,
Wohltätigkeit waren in der Tat seine charakteristischen Eigenschaften […]”. And: “Wir könnten noch einen
Charakterzug Hells erwähnen […], und das ist seine Vaterlandsliebe”.
37
Witness for example his remarks on Hell’s ‘New Theory of the Northern Light’ (Hell 1776) in the German
summary, Pinzger 1927, pp. 19-21.
38
See John W. O’Malley’s invaluable article “The Historiography of the Society of Jesus” in The Jesuits (1999),
where he quotes Michel Leroy and Jean Lacouture for the tag Jésuitophobie (O’Malley 1999, p. 11).
- 23 -
most countries.39 By depicting Father Hell not only as an ingenious scientist and an
embodiment of Jesuit ideals, but also as a good patriot and a supporter of Hungarian culture,
Pinzger was able to meet two ideological demands at the same time.
And the demands for a vindication of Father Hell were indeed pressing. As will be described
in chapter II.3 below, Hell was suspected of having forged his data from Vardøhus in 1769.
These accusations were never voiced in any serious publication on the solar parallax, but were
nonetheless harmful to his reputation. It was not until the 1830s, however, that the suspicion
of manipulated data sets became a case high on the agenda of serious astronomy, with the
publication of Carl Ludwig Littrow’s P. Hell’s Reise nach Wardoe (‘Father Hell’s Journey to
Vardø’, 1835). Having gained access to Hell’s surviving manuscripts, Littrow argued that
they contained proof that the late Jesuit had forged his data sets before publication. His own
edition of manuscripts by Hell and Sajnovics, partly in Latin with German commentary, partly
in German translation, does not meet the standards of modern philology.
The American astronomer Simon Newcomb, a grand figure in the international Venus transit
projects of 1874 and 1882, during a visit to the Vienna University Observatory, investigated
the same manuscripts and came to the opposite conclusion with regard to the Venus transit
manuscripts. Since Newcomb, there has been a general agreement amongst historians of
astronomy that Father Hell must be freed from the accusations of having committed the worst
thinkable scientific crime.40
Newcomb’s rehabilitation aimed at an international, English-reading audience of astronomers
helped remedy the situation, but there still existed numerous popular works in which Hell’s
alleged fraud was described as though it was a historical fact. Accordingly, Jesuit apologists
repeatedly pointed to Newcomb’s work, among them the Austrian-born Jesuit astronomer
Johann Georg Hagen, director of the prestigious Osservatorio Astronomico Vaticano. In an
article of 1917 (in German), Hagen emphasised Newcomb’s vindication of Hell and used the
opportunity to call for a new edition of the original travel diaries to replace Littrow’s
unreliable edition with its incompetent and all-too-hostile commentary, to be published
preferably in conjunction with the 200th anniversary of Hell’s birth in 1920. It was evidently
39
For recent contributions to this topic, see the outstanding series Writing the Nation: National Historiographies
and the Making of Nation States in 19th and 20th Century Europe (the first volume of which has been edited by
Stefan Berger & Chris Lorenz [2008]).
40
For details, see Section II.3.5 below.
- 24 -
this challenge Pinzger tried to meet, although his plans for a complete edition of Sajnovics’
travel diary had to be postponed and eventually cancelled due to financial problems in the
years of economic constraint following World War I.41
Attempts to restore the reputation of Maximilianus Hell have not been undertaken exclusively
by Jesuit authors, or Hungarians for that matter. Thus, the Belgian-born historian of science
George Sarton (1884-1956), professor at Harvard University, delivered a “Vindication of
Father Hell” in his widely read journal Isis (1944). Drawing upon the writings of nineteenthcentury astronomers, supplemented by incursions into a limited number of periodicals and
other printed texts from the eighteenth century, Sarton assesses Maximilianus Hell’s career in
a balanced manner, emphasising both his weaknesses and his strengths (the former aspect had
been effectively silenced by Pinzger, whose work Sarton in any case does not quote).
However, because of his debt to the anachronistic and often quite biased accounts of
nineteenth-century astronomers, Sarton’s own account of Father Hell’s career in fact
resembles the hagiographic pattern of the Jesuit apologists, described above.42 Nonetheless,
his article remains the most authoritative and frequently quoted biographical work on Hell in
the English language.43
Maximilianus Hell’s career has also been studied by a limited number of Scandinavian
scholars, whose interest in the Viennese Jesuit originates from the fact that he visited their
lands during the expedition of 1769. The works of the historically oriented astronomer Axel
V. Nielsen in Denmark and the astronomically trained librarian Helge B. Kragemo in Norway
are especially valuable.
Axel Vilfred Nielsen (1902-1970) was for many years director of the Ole Rømer Observatory
in Aarhus, Denmark, in which capacity he published several historical works. His contribution
“Father Hell and the Venus transit of 1769” in the ‘Nordic Journal for Astronomy’ (in Danish,
1957) draws upon a much wider spectrum of primary and secondary sources than does Sarton.
When describing Hell’s scientific merits he is just as balanced as Sarton, although he – unlike
the Harvard professor – extends this balance to include the behaviour of the Viennese Jesuit
during the debates over the solar parallax. Instead of portraying a totally innocent Jesuit,
41
Pinzger 1927, German summary, p. [1].
Cf. Sarton 1944, espec. pp. 99-104.
43
Sarton’s article is, for example, the main source of information for Woolf’s treatment of Maximilianus Hell in
The Transits of Venus and for Eli Maor’s chapter on Hell in June 8, 2004 (2000).
42
- 25 -
Nielsen concludes that “Hell was not without responsibility [for the controversy] and he made
things worse by his aggressive reaction” to the allegations of fraud.44 He also suggests that his
strife with Leonard Euler’s assistant Anders Johan Lexell probably was about as vehement as
that against Lalande. In brief, Nielsen demonstrates that he has read – and understood – Hell’s
original publications. He had even ordered copies of Hell’s and Sajnovics’ diaries from the
archive of the Vienna University Observatory, and included in his article extracts of these
manuscripts, partly in facsimile, partly in fine Danish translations.
Helge Bergh Kragemo (1897-1968) had, like Nielsen, a background in astronomy.45 For the
main part of his career, however, he was an academic librarian at the University Library of
Oslo. In altogether three articles he treated the expedition of Hell and its various scientific
results (1933, 1960 and 1968; all in Norwegian).46 At least by 1960, Kragemo possessed
copies of (parts of) the travel diary of Sajnovics as well as some other manuscripts from the
expedition. His schooling in Latin appears to have been limited, but he compensated for this
by collaborating with the eminent medievalist Lilli Gjerløw (1910-1998) at Norsk Historisk
Kjeldeskrift-Institutt in Oslo.47 As regards the Venus transits, nothing suggests that he has
personally undertaken a read-through of the various Latin and French writings that were
issued by Hell and others in the years following the expedition. Nonetheless, his conclusion is
that Hell proved himself to be a “lousy debater” who “used all kinds of tricks; erroneous
calculations, wrong longitude determinations and incorrect parallax effects.”48 In this respect,
the assessment of Kragemo differs little from that of Nielsen (whose work he never quotes).
The main achievement of Kragemo, however, consists in his application of the preserved
letters and diaries as sources for the cultural history of Norway. Like Pinzger, Kragemo
intended to make a new edition of Sajnovics’ travel diary in replacement of Littrow’s
incompetent translation, but – like Pinzger before him – he failed to accomplish this work.49
44
Nielsen 1957b, p. 84: “Der kom et langt og artigt efterspil. Hell kan ikke siges fri for skyld deri og gjorde ondt
verre ved sin voldsomme reaktion”.
45
His cand.scient. thesis, submitted at the University of Oslo in 1926, is entitled ‘The pole height of Oslo,
determined by observation in the first vertical’ (Oslo’s polhøide bestemt ved observation i 1. vertikal [Struves
metode]). I am indebted to Nils Voje Johansen, lecturer of mathematics and historian of natural sciences at the
University of Oslo, for this information.
46
His article of 1960 was translated to German by A. Bamesreiter and published as a separate booklet by the
Tornedalica Foundation in Luleå in 1997 (I have not had access to that publication).
47
Cf. Kragemo 1960, p. 96 (where, however, her name is misspelled “Gierløff”). I am indebted to Dr. Espen
Karlsen, expert of medieval Latin at the National Library of Norway, for information on Gjerløw.
48
Kragemo 1960, pp. 121: “Her viser han seg imidlertid som en dårlig debattant”; and, referring to Encke, on p.
122: “Han [Encke] påviste hvordan Hell i sitt forsvar for sine observasjoners fortreffelighet hadde brukt alle
slags knep: regnefeil, gale lengdegradsbestemmelser og feilaktige parallaksevirkninger”.
49
Cf. Kragemo 1968, p. 133.
- 26 -
More recent, source-based contributions on the expedition in Scandinavian languages include
a handful of shorter articles by Nils Voje Johansen of the University of Oslo; by the author of
this thesis; by Ole Mortensøn of Rudkøping Museum; and by Allan Sortkær of Aarhus
University.50
Maximilianus Hell’s expedition took place despite the fact that Danish-Norwegian legislation
forbade the presence of Jesuits in the country. Although missionary work as such may not
have been undertaken by Hell and Sajnovics, they were allowed to hold masses in both
Trondheim and Gothenburg (Göteborg). This aspect of the expedition forms part of
Kragemo’s analysis, and has been further investigated by the Dutch-born monk Johannes J.
Duin (in Norwegian, 1978), by the German historian of Catholicism Helmut Holzapfel (in
Danish, 1979) and by the Norwegian professor of history Sølvi Sogner (in Norwegian, 2003).
However, their works are contributions to the topic ‘Jesuits on Scandinavian soil’, and do not
touch upon the astronomical activities as such. Further Scandinavian contributions, presenting
primary sources on the expedition of Maximilianus Hell seen from a Swedish angle include
works by Nordenmark (in Swedish, 1939) and Erik Tobé (in Swedish, 1991). It is striking,
however, that very few of the Scandinavian authors cite publications from their neighbouring
countries. Despite linguistic affinity, the national boundaries appear regrettably insurmountable to many scholars in the Scandinavian countries.
Austrian interest in Hell’s career has obvious reasons. Although no full-length biographical
work has been published since Littrow’s book of 1835, source-based articles include
contributions by the Jesuit Johann Steinmayr;51 the historically oriented astronomer Konradin
Ferrari d’Occhieppo;52 and the Jesuit Anton Pinsker.53 Maximilianus Hell is also treated at
some length in recent Diplomarbeiten of Nora Pärr and Cornelia Maria Schörg and in a
doctoral thesis of Hermann Haberzettl – all historians.54 Biographical works on Hell’s
assistants Franciscus de Paula Triesnecker and Antonius Pilgram, respectively by Horst
Kastner-Masilko (2005) and Thomas Posch & Karin Lackner (2008) are also noteworthy.
50
Voje Johansen 2004, 2009 & 2011b; Aspaas & Voje Johansen 2004a & 2004b; Aspaas 2008c; Mortensøn
2004; Sortkær 2008.
51
A series of lectures from the 1930s, published 2010 by Isolde Müller & Thomas Posch.
52
Biographical studies from 1957 & 1973.
53
Biographical lecture published in 1971.
54
Pärr, ‘Viennese Astronomers: Their Activities at Private Observatories and University Observatories’ (in
German, 2001); Schörg, ‘The Presence of the Vienna University Observatory and its Research in the GermanLanguage Astronomical Ephemerides and Journals, 1755-1830’ (in German, 2009); Haberzettl, ‘The Position of
Ex-Jesuits in Austrian Politics and Culture at the End of the Eighteenth Century’ (in German, 1973).
- 27 -
Thanks to these contributions, we know a great deal about the position of Maximilianus Hell
in eighteenth-century Vienna. Nora Pärr has quite recently submitted a doctoral thesis on
Maximilianus Hell to the University of Vienna. I have not had access to her monograph
during the writing of this thesis, nor has she seen my own works in progress.
Slovak interest in Hell’s career is manifest in a set of contextualised studies edited by Ján
Novák in 1970 (in Slovak, with German summaries) as well as in a full-length biography by
Elena Ferencová (in Slovak, 1995). These contributions contain many pieces of information,
especially on Hell’s childhood and youth in a region that is now found within the confines of
Slovakia. As for the ‘Slovakness’ of Father Hell, however, this is often assumed, but has
turned out to be rather difficult to prove.
Hungarian contributions to the study of Hell’s career have multiplied since the days of Ferenc
Pinzger. The tendency is to portray Hell, somewhat anachronistically, as a representative of
the Hungarian nation state. Hell’s patriotic remarks concerning the Kingdom of Hungary are
all too often ‘translated’ as though they were uttered by a nineteenth- or twentieth-century
nationalist. His alleged part in the discovery of the Finno-Ugrian language group is an
important ingredient in many of these articles, few of which are based upon primary
sources.55 More promising is the intellectual historian at the European University of Budapest
László Kontler’s recent interest in the cultural-political context of Maximilianus Hell’s career
(2011 & in press).
As for German authors, the prolific historian of astronomy from the Observatorium Hoher
List in Daun, Peter Brosche has investigated Hell’s contacts with certain German
contemporaries (in German, 1977 & 2010; in English, 2001). Alexander Moutchnik’s doctoral
thesis on Christianus Mayer (2006, mentioned above) is also noteworthy in this context.
Finally, recent contributions by Elvira Botez (in English, 2004) and Ferenc Szenkovits (in
Hungarian, 2006) treat Hell’s period as a professor in present-day Romania.56
55
To cite but one example, the editors of an otherwise fine Hungarian edition of Sajnovics’ Demonstratio have
taken recourse to a report on archival studies made by Hungarian linguists in Vienna during the first half of the
nineteenth century, instead of revisiting the manuscript collections of the Vienna University Observatory
themselves (cf. the contribution of Szíj to Sajnovics 1994). The conclusions of nineteenth-century authors thus
holds sway.
56
I have been unable to get access to Victor Marian, “Maximilian Hell (Höll) şi activitatea sa la Cluj”, Gazeta
Matematică vol. 49 (1943-44), pp. 63-72 (‘Maximilianus Hell and his activities in Claudiopolis’, referred to in
Hadobás 2008, p. 73 and by other authors).
- 28 -
Pieces for the puzzle of an overall understanding of Hell’s career have been laid out, then, by
representatives of various nation states, academic disciplines and religious denominations.
Does this mean that a mere ‘cut and paste’ operation would provide a coherent story of his
life, capable of shedding light on his contributions to the international Venus transit projects
and how they were received? Unfortunately not. For one thing, various pieces do not match.
The modern map is too often used to navigate in a terrain that looked so much different to
Hell and his contemporaries. Breaking down national barriers in a search for the ‘mental map’
of the past is necessary. This does not mean that boundaries did not exist in the past, only that
they were different, and that we need to appreciate this fact in our search for historical insight.
I.1.2 ANALYTICAL APPROACH, SELECTION OF SOURCES AND TECHNICAL
REMARKS
Some gaps and shortcomings in the available historiography have already been outlined. In
the remaining sections of this chapter, I will describe how I intend to meet the challenges
posed by those gaps and shortcomings.
I.1.2.1 ANALYTICAL APPROACH
This thesis understands itself as a work in the field of history of science. History of science is,
as an academic activity, a sub-branch of history. Not in the sense that this kind of research is
exclusively, or even mainly, undertaken by professional historians, but because the same
standards apply, whether an academic historian (or historically oriented sociologist,
philosopher, scholar of literature, or similar) or a scientist (usually from the pertaining
discipline) is involved. The questions posed to the sources will vary over time and between
various co-existing and competing ‘schools’, as in any academic field, but they must be
analysed according to the principles of source criticism.57
‘Big histories’ covering the main developments in particular branches of science, or even
science and learning in the widest sense and over multiple centuries, were long ranked as the
best way to proceed as a historian of science. The last decades have, however, witnessed a
fragmentation of approaches and a general narrowing of spatial, geographical and linguistic
57
See, however, Kragh’s excellent Introduction to the Historiography of Science (1987) for examples of scholars
that have argued for a more anachronistic (or “presentist”) approach to the history of science.
- 29 -
limits. For example, international successes such as Carlo Ginzburg’s The Cheese and the
Worms: The Cosmos of a Sixteenth-Century Miller (London 1980, Italian orig. 1976) or
Leviathan and the Air-Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life by Steven Shapin &
Simon Schaffer (Princeton 1985) constitute a rather narrow approach, compared to the
universalist scope of earlier classics in the vein of Augustine to Galileo: The History of
Science, A.D. 400-1650 by Alistair Crombie (London 1952) or From the Closed World to the
Infinite Universe, a grand synthesis of European astronomy from the fifteenth to the early
eighteenth century by Alexandre Koyré (Baltimore 1957). What is more, whereas the main
line of conflict once used to run between the ‘externalist’ and the ‘internalist’ camps (that is,
between humanists or social scientists on the one hand and scientists studying the history of
their discipline on the other), there is now also a criss-crossing of conflicts between various
groups of ‘externalists’.58
A recently retired professor of history of science at Oxford University, Robert Fox has in a
paper of 2006 discussed the main developments of the discipline that he represents.59 While
welcoming new approaches for their often illuminating insights into the scientific cultures of a
particular region, institution or group of researchers, he deplores the “all-too-exclusive
commitment” of some scholars, who tend to subscribe to the approach of some particular
authority within the ‘new history of science’ and reject all others.60
It is easy to appreciate the attitude of Professor Fox and agree that the historian should seek to
be eclectic in the most positive sense, that is, at the same time open-minded and sceptical.
Throughout this thesis, efforts are made to analyse relevant textual sources in a contextual
perspective. Over the following pages, I will describe three analytical perspectives that I have
found convenient to apply in the process of contextualisation, however conventional and
unoriginal they may appear.
The first of these perspectives has to do with breaking down national barriers, avoiding what
historically oriented sociologists have coined “methodological nationalism”.61 Employing a
58
This does not imply that the ancient conflict between ‘internalists’ and ‘externalists’ has in any way cooled
down, see for example Enebakk 2008 or 2009 (both in Norwegian).
59
Fox, “Faschioning the discipline: History of science in the European intellectual tradition” 2006.
60
Fox 2006, p. 411.
61
The concept appears in historical studies to be primarily attributed to Anthony Smith, but it does have roots in
the 1970s, see for example Wimmer & Schiller 2002. As to its meaning in historical studies, readers of
Norwegian may consult Myklebost 2009 or Kjeldstadli 2009.
- 30 -
comparative perspective is a means of achieving this. The second perspective is sociolinguistics, or more precisely an awareness that the language in which an expression is made
is not always arbitrary. The final perspective implies study of the interaction between
professionals and amateurs in science, an approach that some scholars prefer to call
“dilettantism”.
What do I mean by ‘breaking down national barriers’? In an article on “Nationalism and
internationalism” in Routledge’s Companion to the History of Modern Science (1990), the
historian of science Brigitte Schroeder-Gudehus in a few sentences sums up what is
commonly perceived as an important difference between eighteenth- and nineteenth-century
science. The world of the eighteenth-century savant, Schroeder-Gudehus maintains, was
characterised by cosmopolitanism and at least verbal adherence to the ideals of the so-called
Respublica litteraria, or ‘Republic of Letters’:62
This does not mean, however, that within this cosmopolitan republic of letters
scientific achievement, as an intellectual exploit, had not been a matter of
collective pride and envy and, therefore, a possible source of tension between
co-operation and competition. Scientific discoveries were not only a matter of
personal fame; the glory they brought to the scientist also accrued to his native
country or, where national consciousness was still in its infancy, to his prince.
[…] However, difficult conflicts of loyalty between the principles of scientific
internationalism and the fatherland’s claim to undivided commitment, which
were so common later on, hardly occurred before the nation state had gradually
evolved into its modern form after the French Revolution and taken ideological
hold of its citizenry and before the scientific research had become a factor of
industrial and then military strength in the late nineteenth century.
The Swedish historian of science Sverker Sörlin has on several occasions explored what he
calls the ‘cosmopolitan’ aspect of science. In one of his articles, entitled “National and
International Aspects of Cross-Boundary Science” (1993), three scientific expeditions (or
clusters of expeditions) are analysed – the French Pacific expedition of Lapérouse in 17851788, the Danish-sponsored expedition to Arabia felix in 1761-1767 and the travels of various
pupils of Linnaeus from the 1740s to the 1770s. In this connection, Sörlin touches upon the
Venus-transit enterprise of the 1760s and describes astronomy as an, in its very nature,
particularly internationally oriented discipline. In the end, however, he persuasively concludes
on a note contrasting that advocated by Schroeder-Gudehus and others, that “difficult
conflicts of loyalty between the principles of scientific internationalism and the fatherland’s
62
Schroeder-Gudehus 1990, p. 910.
- 31 -
claim to undivided commitment” hardly existed before the French Revolution. Instead, Sörlin
maintains that63
[t]he 18th-century scientist lived in a rhetorical universe of paradoxes and
conflicting ideals. He should be loyal to the Republic of Letters. He should be
loyal to his state, which might consider certain cosmopolitan manoeuvres
unpatriotic and treacherous.
The demands for loyalty to the state or sovereign on whose behalf scientific expeditions were
undertaken manifest themselves in various ways in the sources investigated by Sörlin. It is
important, however, to stress that the ‘national’ element did not necessarily imply that the
scientist needed to be a member of a particular linguistic group.64 Thus, the team of the
“Danish” expedition to Arabia felix (i.e., roughly modern Yemen) was very international
indeed, and the initiative even came from a prominent scholar at the University of Göttingen.
Even so, care was taken that no scientific reports or specimens were to fall into the hands of
foreign nations – the participants had to vow that everything was to be published first by
Danish printers and stored in Danish collections.65 In the final event, the only surviving
member of the group, Carsten Niebuhr, published his account of the expedition in German,
and edited the natural-history journal of his deceased colleague, the Swede Pehr (Petrus)
Forrskål, in Latin.66 Publishing took place in Copenhagen, however, and in that sense these
were presumably classified as ‘Danish’ texts.
Following Sörlin, the US American historian of scientific institutions James McClellan III in
an article in the seminal journal Dix-Huitième Siècle points to the many European academies
and societies of science as ideal illustrations of the strains between national concerns and
cosmopolitan commitments in the everyday life of the eighteenth-century savant (in French,
1993). For one thing, the academies of this century were distinctly ‘European’, and they were
nurtured by a common intellectual climate and had similar raisons d’être. There were,
however, disciplinary differences: not all academies and societies covered all branches of
science and learning. Another important difference, not discussed by Sörlin, is the linguistic
diversity of Europe – a diversity to which the academies contributed, with their proceedings in
Latin, French, English, Danish, Swedish, Dutch, German, Italian and Spanish. Nonetheless,
63
Sörlin 1993, p. 66.
The concept of a chain between nation – Volk – language is more of a romanticist idea, as discussed in for
example Iggers & Wang 2008, pp. 31-32 (on Johann Gottfried Herder) & 71-72 (on Johann G. Fichte).
65
Sörlin 1993, pp. 60-61.
66
Cf. e.g. Harbsmeier 2003.
64
- 32 -
McClellan maintains that the widespread use of ‘corresponding members’ and regular
exchange of proceedings and other scientific publications contributed to binding the savants
together, even formally, in a real ‘Republic of Letters’. Without the truly international
networks provided by the academies and societies of science, McClellan seems to suggest, the
Venus transit projects of the 1760s could never have taken place.67 On the other hand, he
concludes that the national or regional element of these early-modern institutions was equally
important, as seen in the emphasis placed on gaining recognition from the state or ruler in
whose territory the institution flourished, represented by titles such as “Royal Society”,
“Imperial Academy” and the like. Official support of this kind hardly emanated from some
sort of pan-European solidarity; quite the contrary, in fact. Instead, the academies and
societies won the support of their sovereigns by appealing to the public benefits – economic,
cultural, etc. – that were likely flow forth from their activities. For all their similarities, then,
the European academies and societies of science were primarily geographically restricted
phenomena that grew out of various national, local or even confessional realities – the
Republic of Letters was hardly a prime reason for their existence. At best, it was a side-effect
of their endeavours, McClellan argues.68
McClellan could not have arrived at his conclusions without employing a comparative, panEuropean perspective and crossing linguistic barriers in his own investigations of the subject.
In this respect, Sörlin, McClellan and other leading historians of science are not characteristic
representatives of history as an academic discipline whose performers tend to investigate the
past of individual nations rather than clusters of nations. Returning to Professor Fox’ abovementioned article, this was originally delivered as a paper at a gathering of the European
Society for the History of Science, of which Fox is a founding father. The linguistic,
ideological and historiographical traditions of the various countries of Europe constitute
barriers that Fox and other historians of science are continuously struggling to overcome. It is
an aim of this study to make a small contribution in precisely that direction.
There are, in my view, good reasons to treat Maximilianus Hell as a representative of the
European Republic of Letters. First, he was an astronomer, and astronomy as such was – as
67
McClellan 1993, espec. pp. 156-158.
McClellan 1993, espec. pp. 159-165, with its series of poignant sentences: “Creations de l’État et des
gouvernement, les académies furent moins ‘d’Europe’ que ‘des nations de l’Europe’” (p. 160); “Dans une
histoire complète et analytique des académies d’Europe, la République des Lettres semble si diversifiée qu’il
n’en reste pas grand chose” (p. 163); etc.
68
- 33 -
has already been pointed out – a highly international discipline. Second, he himself subscribed
to the ideals of the Republic of Letters and deplored the tendency of publishing scholarly
work in other languages than Latin or French, which he judged to be the two only ‘universal
languages’ of the sciences. Third, Father Hell’s central position in the Venus transit enterprise
invites such an approach, since his contributions are referred to in writings by astronomers of
all the leading ‘nations of science’ of the Enlightenment.
I would argue, then, that the international orientation of leading eighteenth-century
astronomers calls for a breaking down of national barriers in our study of their careers. The
above-mentioned study of Sven Widmalm, A Commerce of Letters (1991; 1992) convincingly
demonstrates how practical demands inherent in the way astronomy was performed led
astronomers to contact each other in order to engage in a mutually beneficial exchange of
observations across national boundaries.69
However, Widmalm does not discuss the linguistic aspect of the correspondence and seems
not to take Latin letters into consideration. The French letters of the astronomers Delisle, Jean
Bernoulli III, Lalande and numerous others are, however, analysed and frequently quoted
from in English translation. From the Latinist’s point of view, it might be added that the
French term commerce de lettres that served as inspiration for the title of Widmalm’s report is
in itself a mere translation of the Latin commercium litterarium (or litterarum). The letter
itself, Widmalm points out, served as a “scientific instrument” to the astronomers involved.70
I would add to this that the international languages, Latin and French, also served as
‘instruments’. Without knowledge of either or both, you could hardly claim membership in
the Republic of Letters.71 This observation leads to the second analytical perspective,
sociolinguistics.
In the introduction to his magisterial survey of Neo-Latin Literature in Sweden (2004), the
Latinist Hans Helander points to an astonishing paradox. The extremely rich profusion of
Latin texts in the early-modern period, especially in the field of learning and science, renders
this literature an invaluable source to all major cultural processes from the early renaissance
to the dawn of the twentieth century, including “the rise of the nation state, the geographical
69
See also Subsection I.1.1.3 above.
Widmalm 1991 & 1992.
71
For more on this aspect of eighteenth-century astronomy, see my article Aspaas 2011a (in Norwegian).
70
- 34 -
discoveries, the Protestant movement, the Counter-Reformation, the scientific revolution”.
Nevertheless, “[it] is remarkable that many learned scholars today are not aware of the
existence of this huge treasury”, Helander observes.72 Historians of science are no exception.
It is all too often forgotten how essential Latin was to nearly all the major debates in European
science at least up to the year 1800. Helander also points out another paradox. Despite the
vulgar notion that holds currency in many quarters today, of Latin as a ‘difficult’ and ‘dead’
language, it was quite common for early-modern savants to have difficulties explaining their
scientific discoveries in their mother tongue. The world of learning, or Respublica litteraria,
for a long period consisted of bilingual persons, who mastered one international language in
both conversation and writing (Latin) and one or two national languages, primarily in
conversation (for example Swedish).73 For scientific purposes, Latin was in fact often easier
for them to use than the vernacular. As the eighteenth century progressed, French for various
reasons grew to become a ‘universal language’, even of the sciences, and fluency in Latin
gradually abated. This explains why Helander has chosen to focus on the period from 1620 to
1720 in his survey.
As regards the latter half of the eighteenth century, I find that it is too often forgotten that
although the use of French for scientific purposes expanded rapidly across Europe during the
course of the Enlightenment period, the mother tongue of Voltaire, Diderot and d’Alembert
did not obliterate Latin overnight. Rather, the old and the new co-existed, side by side. Across
Europe, universities still required fluency in Latin of all their staff, and doctoral treatises were
written and defended in that language up until well into the nineteenth century. Furthermore,
although most scientific societies and academies issued their proceedings in the vernacular,
Latin proved hard to kill there, too – witness for example the (Novi) Commentarii of the
Imperial Academy of Saint Petersburg, where the likes of Leonhard Euler published their
main works. The proceedings of the Imperial Academy remained a purely Latin periodical
until 1778, in which year it was announced that French (not Russian!) would be allowed
alongside Latin.74 The English Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London
practised a language policy that allowed Latin articles to be published as they were, but
72
Helander 2004, pp. 14-15; also found in Helander 2001, pp. 8-9. Helander is by no means alone in pointing out
this paradox, see for example Waquet 2001 (French orig. 1998), pp. 80-81; Ludwig 1997 (in German), pp. 323324. Sociolinguistic aspects of eighteenth-century Latin have been in treated in various works by Bo Lindberg,
Peter Burke and Anthony Grafton (e.g. Lindberg 1984 [in Swedish]; Burke 2004; Grafton 2009).
73
See for example Helander 2004, pp. 18-19.
74
See the opening “Avertissement” of the Acta Academiae Scientiarum Imperialis Petropolitanae Tom. I. Pars I.
pro Anno MDCCLXXVII (1778), pp. [i]-vi; cf. Bernoulli 1779a, p. 29.
- 35 -
required all French contributions to be translated into English before they were printed.75
National sentiments are likely to have been at stake here: the ability to read French was
probably as widespread as competence in Latin among the fellows of the Royal Society, but
they obviously preferred not to see the language of their main rival on print in their own
periodical. Latin, however, remained a neutral affair. Conversely, during the years 1768-1774
the Philosophical Transactions were issued in a cheaper edition in Wittenberg. The articles
were all there, unabridged, but accompanied by extensive Latin prefaces to the benefit of
readers in Germany and Central Europe.76 To them, Latin was evidently easier to understand
than English, whereas a German preface – while perhaps easy to read – might have been an
offence to potential readers whose mother tongue was not German.
A similar lesson is learnt from the seminal Journal des Sçavans (or Journal des Savants, in a
modernised spelling) that was issued in Paris. Here, scientific news from all countries of
Europe was reviewed – in French, of course. Most French publishers had ceased to publish
books in Latin by the latter half of the eighteenth century, but the Journal continued to review
titles that had been published in Latin elsewhere in Europe, and letters to the editors in that
language were rapidly translated into French, apparently by the editors themselves. In this
way, a character like Maximilianus Hell, thanks to his fluency in Latin, could communicate
with ease with his colleagues abroad without having to master French.77
Beginning in 1753, an analogous journal for the German-speaking part of Europe, the
Göttingische Anzeigen von Gelehrten Sachen, was being issued by a leading body in the
German Enlightenment, the Royal Society of Sciences in Göttingen. Scientific works in all
European languages were reviewed here, and it is a cherished ‘treasure chest’ for historians
studying the history of science and learning in the latter half of the eighteenth century.
However, it is often forgotten that even a progressive group of scholars like the Royal Society
in Göttingen also promoted Latin. Thus, already in 1751, they had founded another periodical
devoted to scientific articles, not just reviews and summaries, named the Commentarii
Societatis Regiae Scientiarum Gottingensis. This purely Latin periodical continued (later
75
See for example the articles of Pehr Wargentin and Jérôme de Lalande in the Philosophical Transactions: their
contributions in Latin were published as they were submitted, only with an English title added. By contrast, their
French contributions were translated in their entirety before being printed.
76
Kronick 1990, p. 260; cf. Bernoulli 1771a, pp. 149-150.
77
Hell’s contributions to the Journal des Sçavans were all submitted in Latin, but translated into French by the
editorial board (cf. e.g. Hell 1767a). A separate journal presenting articles handed in to the Académie des
Sciences by its foreign correspondents allowed articles in Latin alongside French.
- 36 -
under the name Novi Commentarii) until the year 1777. The choice of language might seem
odd today, but in the contemporaneous world it was hardly that strange: still in 1778, the
editors of the Journal des Sçavans had to send a copy of the important Astronomisches
Jahrbuch of Berlin to a colleague in Switzerland in order to have it reviewed. At the end of
the review, which ran to an impressive 15 pages, we find the editorial remark that:78
We have included a rather lengthy review of this work for the benefit of those
who do not understand German. Astronomers will be forced to study this
language in the future, if the use of it continues for contributions of such
importance to the advancement of their science.
By contrast, the Ephemerides of Hell was read with ease by the astronomers in Paris. Despite
the increased use of various vernaculars for journals and other scientific writings in the Age of
Reason, Latin remained an important – and neutral – language throughout the period covered
by this thesis. Not only the Philosophical Transactions, the Journal des Sçavans and the
Göttingische Anzeigen deserve our attention; Latin periodicals that were widely read and
influential in the same period ought to be taken seriously by historians of science as well.
That said, one should bear in mind that membership in the Republic of Letters was not
facilitated merely by a knowledge of Latin and French. You also needed status, or authority,
in order to become visible beyond the local landscape of your home institution. That a text
was printed in Latin was not in itself a means to secure pan-European readership. In fact,
many scientific treatises were rather local and ephemeral affairs.79 In order to have an impact
beyond a local circle without actually going abroad, you needed a titulature capable of
imposing respect and securing your membership in the informal Respublica litteraria. With
this ‘membership’ established, you could wield your authority in various ways. Father Hell, as
Imperial and Royal Astronomer of the Habsburg lands and director of the Imperial
Observatory of Vienna, may be described as a ‘nodal astronomer’.80 He was a nodal
78
Journal des Sçavans, Décembre 1778, pp. 801-815, here p. 815: “Nous en avons rendu compte un peu au long
en faveur de ceux qui n’entendent pas l’Allemand; les Astronomes seront obligés d’étudier cette Langue, si l’on
continue de s’en servir pour des ouvrages aussi utiles au progrès de leur science”.
79
In my view, earlier contributions to the history of Neo-Latin literature have sometimes overestimated the
dispersal of that literature (see for example IJsewijn 1990, pp. 31-40). While it is true that Latin texts had the
potential to be read by erudites all over Europe, many printed works were never distributed or read outside a
narrow, local circle (see for example Moutchnik 2006, pp. 50-51 on the doctoral theses at German universities;
or the review article by Sutton 2007).
80
In a recent publication in Norwegian, I use the word “knutepunktsastronom” (‘nodal astronomer’) to describe
the roles of the Imperial Astronomer and observatory director, Hell in Vienna and his contemporary, the
observatory director and secretary of the Royal Academy, Wargentin in Stockholm (“The Contributions of
Nordic Amateur Astronomers in Relation to the Venus Transits of 1761 and 1769” [in Norwegian, 2011a]).
- 37 -
astronomer in at least two senses. He obviously contributed to fix the coordinates of his
capital and link his observatory onto a net comprising other key nodal points such as Paris and
Greenwich. But he also functioned as a node of communication inside his own composite
state, as a ‘networker’ connected to various less famous – often amateur – astronomers in less
conspicuous places. By encouraging, facilitating and publishing the observations of such
astronomers, he attached even further nodes onto the web of contemporaneous astronomy,
while at the same time bringing honour to his own home state as a ‘nation of science’.
The question of ‘membership’ and ‘non-membership’ brings the issue of amateurs to the
forefront. This leads to the theoretical approach known as dilettantism. Originally used by
Italian noblemen who engaged in sciences or the arts “for joy’s sake” (that is, not as a
profession), the term dilettante corresponds to the French amateur. Dilettantism as a research
field aims to reconstruct the interaction between professionals and amateurs in various
segments of human culture, including the sciences.
“Dilettantismus” is a term that has been used primarily in German research on cultural and
intellectual history.81 Only in recent years has the focus in some of this research shifted
towards history of science in particular, as manifest in the works of amongst others MarieTheres Federhofer (in German, 2001; in Norwegian, 2011); Robert Seidel (ed., in German,
2001); Michael Schmidt (in German, 2005); several contributions to the volume on
‘Dilettantism around 1800’ edited by Stefan Blechschmidt & Andrea Heinz (eds., in German,
2007)82 and in a similar volume on ‘Dilettante Cultures in Scandinavian Art and Science’ by
Marie-Theres Federhofer & Hanna Hodacs (in Scandinavian languages, 2011).83
The ‘professional/amateur’ dichotomy has experienced shifting connotations through time and
in various languages. As many of the above-mentioned scholars confess, terms such as
‘amateur’, ‘non-professional’ or ‘dilettante’ are especially problematic as far as the eighteenth
century is concerned.84 In most branches of science, the process of differentiation between
professionals (in the sense of ‘real experts’) and ‘dilettanti’ (in its negative sense) had to await
the nineteenth century. Categorisations based on whether an actor was paid for his scientific
81
In English history of science the dilettante is frequently designated as an “amateur” and Dilettantismus as
“amateur science”, see for example Robert Darnton (1968); Philippa Levine (1986); or William Clark (2003).
82
See Kohns; Blechschmidt; Federhofer; Bach; and Robin in op.cit.
83
See Brenna; Hodacs; Lynne Hansen; Aspaas; Voje Johansen; Henriksen; Jensen; Spring; and Beckmann in
op.cit.
84
See Bach 2007 (in German) for a particularly illumating discussion.
- 38 -
works or not are equally problematic. In Swedish astronomy, for example, the leading
astronomer Wargentin had to rely on a wealthy wife for most of his career, and none of the
other leading Swedish astronomers of the same century enjoyed fully financed professorships,
be it in astronomy, physics or mathematics.85 I have chosen nonetheless to characterise
Wargentin, Hell and their peers as ‘professionals’ because the positions they kept were, if not
well paid, then at least associated with sufficient authority to set them apart from other
contemporaries, who lacked a formal position at a University, Academy, Observatory or other
institution of higher learning. Again, astronomy appears to form a special case. Whereas other
branches of science were still ill-defined, lacking designated professorships and relying
entirely upon amateurs and ‘spare-time interest’ of professors from neighbouring disciplines,
astronomy was not in the same state of flux. In a recent contribution on the history of the
sciences in eighteenth-century Europe, Irène Passeron has argued that astronomy was a sort of
“discipline avant la lettre” because of the foundation of numerous observatories and
dedicated professorships for astronomy during this century.86 That said, the professionalised
nature of astronomy did not imply that amateurs were excluded from the scientific discourse,
only that their contributions in astronomy were likely to be attributed with a different level of
authority.
In sum, breaking down national barriers, highlighting the role of Latin versus vernaculars and
investigating the impact of dilettantism to eighteenth-century astronomy will be the three
main theoretical perspectives of the present work.
I.1.2.2 SELECTION OF SOURCES
The sources investigated in this study are texts, both printed works and manuscripts.
Maximilianus Hell was a productive author and editor of scientific texts, and his works were
frequently commented upon by others. A fair amount of letters and unpublished manuscripts
that shed further light on his career are also extant.
As an astronomer, Hell’s main work was the Ephemerides (Astronomicae) ad Meridianum
Vindobonensem. This large-format ephemeris, or almanac, also served as a scientific journal,
85
Widmalm 1990a, pp. 172-175; Aspaas 2011a.
See Passeron’s introduction to the special issue of Dix-huitième siècle Numéro 40, La République des
Sciences, in which several interesting investigations of the ‘quasi-disciplinarity’ of various branches of
eighteenth-century science are found (Passeron 2008, here p. 20).
86
- 39 -
thanks to its lengthy appendices containing contributions to both theoretical and practical
astronomy. It was within the framework of these appendices that most of Hell’s works on the
transits of Venus were issued.
In keeping with the aim of investigating the contributions of Father Hell in a CentralEuropean and Nordic context, contemporaneous monographs and periodicals from several
countries have been investigated. Relevant volumes of the official periodicals of various
scientific bodies, namely the Royal Swedish Academy, the Royal Danish Society of Sciences,
the French Royal Academy of Sciences, the Göttingen Society of Sciences, The Royal Society
in Britain, the Academy of Sciences in Berlin and the Imperial Russian Academy of Sciences
have been either leafed or scrolled through.87 Furthermore, various Latin dissertations
submitted to the universities of Åbo (Turku) and Copenhagen have been investigated. The
Göttingische Anzeigen von Gelehrten Sachen, the Journal encyclopédique and Journal des
Sçavans, as well as some contemporaneous newspapers published in Denmark and Norway
have also been consulted, albeit not as systematically as the Ephemerides Astronomicae. The
journal-like Receuils and Cahiers of Jean Bernoulli III in Berlin, and to a lesser degree his
Lettres Astronomiques, Sammlung von kurzer Reisebeschreibungen and Archiv zur neuern
Geschichte, have likewise been consulted.
The chief manuscript sources have been found at the Institut für Astronomie der Universität
Wien (Wiener Universitätssternwarte, hereafter WUS) and at the Archiv der Universität
Wien; at Riksarkivet (hereafter RA) and Nasjonalbiblioteket in Oslo; at the archive of Det
Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab (KDVS), as well as at Kongelige Bibliotek (KB)
and Rigsarkivet (RA) in Copenhagen; at Centrum för Vetenskapshistoria vid Kungl. Vetenskapsakademien (CVH) in Stockholm; at Universitätsbibliothek Basel (UB Basel); and at
Rossiiskaia Akademiia Nauk (RAN) in St. Petersburg. Last but not least, I have profited
greatly from archival research conducted by Nils Voje Johansen in various archives in
Scandinavia; from similar research undertaken by Johan Stén in Sweden, Finland and beyond;
and from the harvest that Magda Vargha has made in various Hungarian archives. All three
have generously placed photocopies from their archival researches at my disposal.
87
The digitisation services of numerous actors, such as Google Books; Bibliothèque nationale de France
(Gallica); Göttingen Digitalisierungszentrum; or the “Aufklärung” project of the Universitätsbibliothek
Bielefeld, to name but a few, have served as invaluable supplements to traditional library visits to various
institutions in England (Oxford), Denmark (Copenhagen), Sweden (Stockholm), Norway (Tromsø, Trondheim,
Oslo), Austria (Vienna) and Russia (Saint Petersburg).
- 40 -
The fate of the manuscripts of Maximilianus Hell merits particular consideration. As
explained elsewhere in this thesis, Hell had plans for a grand work on his Vardø expedition,
the three-volume Expeditio litteraria ad Polum arcticum. Most parts of this work were never
published, but nothing suggests he destroyed the manuscripts or asked others to do so.
Furthermore, his network of correspondents was wide and diverse, and like any astronomer
seriously engaged in practical astronomy, he certainly cherished the letters he received. After
his death in 1792, however, the manuscript collections of Hell passed onto private hands.
The prominent French astronomer Lalande, in his Bibliographie astronomique (Paris 1803),
explains that he had been in contact with Hell’s successor at the Vienna University
Observatory, Franciscus de Paula Triesnecker, to learn about the fate of the Expeditio
litteraria. Triesnecker answered by letter that he had “been unable to even look at the
manuscripts”, for88
the inheritors have denied him this satisfaction: this is another reason to regret
the loss of Father Hell. Perhaps Curiosity, which publishes what Jealousy has
been able to hide away, will one day supply us with the publication of these
manuscripts.
Jealousy prevailed beyond the lifetime of both Lalande and Triesnecker. In the copy of the
Copenhagen edition of the Venus transit report from Vardø that is kept at the Vienna
University Observatory, an unknown hand has scribbled (in German) that:89
After the death of Hell, a Jesuit from Augsburg, by the name Rauscher, is said
to have taken his many manuscripts – in particular the Expeditio litteraria ad
Polum arcticum – to Mogilev, a place in Russia.
In the 1780s and 90s, the Jesuit order was suppressed in all Catholic countries, but it survived
in the Russia of Catherine the Great. Mogilev was an important centre of the Jesuit order in
88
Lalande 1803, p. 722: “M. Triesnecker, habile astronome de Vienne, m’écrit qu’il n’a pu parvenir à voir même
les manuscrits; les héritiers lui ont refusé cette satisfaction: c’est un nouveau motif de regrets sur la perte du P.
Hell. Peut-être que l’intérêt, qui publie ce que la jalousie aurait pu recéler, nous procurera la publication de ces
manuscrits.”
89
Hell 1770a1 (WUS Vienna), note on the inside of the back cover: “Nach den Ende des Hell soll ein Augsburger Jesuit Nahmens Rauscher seine viele Handschriften besonders die Expeditio litteraria ad polum Arcticum
nach Mohilew gebracht haben, welches in Ruslandt lieget.” The entire copy has been digitised by staff at the
Vienna University Observatory. The note is found on p. 101 of the pdf document on the internet (cf.
http://www.univie.ac.at/hwastro/, accessed 3 March 2011). The same copy is also unique in its insertion of
several illustration at the end. These were not found in the Copenhagen edition, but were included at a later date.
- 41 -
this period, as will be explained in chapter I.2. The somewhat mysterious character Rauscher
is mentioned in the testament of Hell, but apart from that I have been able to find only few
traces of him in the literature.90 In January 1783, a certain “Father Rauscher” is mentioned in
a letter from Hell to Franciscus Weiss in Buda, in the context of religious pamphlets
dispatched between Vienna and Pest-Buda.91 He is also mentioned by the Danish/German
traveller Münter during his brief stay in Vienna in the year after.92 As a devout ex-Jesuit, Hell
remained loyal to the Society of Jesus and longed for its resurrection after the order had been
suppressed by the Pope in 1773. Münter describes how Rauscher served as a postman for the
conservative ex-Jesuits. He also points to Hell’s colleague in Würzburg, Franciscus Huberti as
one of the protagonists of pro-Jesuit activities in the German-speaking world. Huberti’s
manuscripts were for a long time lost until they re-emerged in Saint Petersburg, to which city
they had made their way around 1820.93 It is not unthinkable that substantial parts of Hell’s
manuscripts were sent to the same destination. One may hope, therefore, that part of his
legacy is still awaiting discovery somewhere in Eastern Europe.
The main collection of known manuscripts, however, is preserved in Vienna, where it is now
kept at the Vienna University Observatory (WUS). This institution acquired its collection of
documents from private owners around 1830. The editor of the first selection of manuscripts
pertaining to the Vardøhus expedition, Carl Ludwig Littrow, was well aware that this was no
complete set of manuscripts. For example, the travel diary of Sajnovics exhibited a lacuna for
the stay in Copenhagen in June 1768. Furthermore, Hell’s correspondence was illogically
incomplete. There must have existed far more manuscripts.
The heading “Selection of Sources” on this section is thus somewhat misleading. As far as
manuscripts are concerned, I have not been in a position where I could pick and choose.
Important stages in Hell’s relationship with other astronomers has had to be reconstructed in
an indirect manner, by investigating the correspondence of peers like Anders Johan Lexell in
90
Pinzger came across the same note in the copy of the Venus transit report in question. In the Hungarian part of
his work, Pinzger discusses the whereabouts of the manuscripts that are missing from the collection of the
Vienna University Observatory (Pinzger 1920, pp. 42-44). According to Haberzettl 1773, p. 202, Rauscher was a
former Jesuit whose full name was Johann Baptist Rauscher. In 1784-1791, this Rauscher issued a German
edition of a French ecclesiastic history by Berault-Bercastel (ibid.). However, he is not included in Duhr’s
comprehensive survey of the history of the Jesuit order in German-speaking parts of Europe (1928a; 1928b).
91
Hell to Weiss in Buda, dated Vienna 11 January 1783 (Vargha priv.).
92
Münter 1837.
93
Ingrid Hupp, internet article on “Franz Huberti”, www.didaktik.mathematik.uniwuerzburg.de/history/mathematik/hubertilebensbild.html (accessed 25 January 2008).
- 42 -
Saint Petersburg, Anders Planman in Åbo, Pehr Wargentin in Stockholm, Jean Benoulli III in
Berlin, Franciscus Weiss in Tyrnavia, and so forth. As luck would have it, particularly the
Swedish archives have proven themselves intact and well arranged. Hell is mentioned in
numerous letters exchanged between Planman, Lexell and Wargentin. Furthermore, both Hell
and his Hungarian counterpart, Weiss, corresponded with Wargentin in Stockholm. These
letters appear never to have been used in the historiography of the transits of Venus. Even the
largely preserved correspondence of Jean Bernoulli III in Berlin (now kept in UB Basel)
proved itself to be a very interesting source, which – as far as Maximilianus Hell is concerned
– seems to have been untapped until now.
I.1.2.3 TECHNICAL REMARKS
Given the widespread use of Latin in early-modern Central Europe, both place names and
personal names have come down to us in Latin as well as various vernacular forms. Thus, the
person known in Latin as Maximilianus Hell (or Höll, or even Hellius) is referred to in
contemporaneous sources as Maximilian Hell (German and Danish) or Maximilien Hell
(French). In more recent literature, he re-emerges as Hell Miksa (Hungarian) or Maximilián
Hell (Slovak). His hometown Schemnicium is also known as Schemnitz or Schemniz (G),
Selmecz or Selmecbánya (H), or currently as Banská Štiavnica (Sl). Throughout this thesis,
the Latin forms are used, with vernacular variants given in footnotes or inside parentheses.
The Companion to the History of the Neo-Latin Studies in Hungary by István Bartók et al.
(2005); the catalogue on “Jesuiten-Mathematiker in der Deutschen Assistenz bis 1773” by
Karl Fischer (1978); and the Orbis Latinus of Johann Grässe (2nd edn., 1909) have provided
the Latin forms in nearly all cases. Where several Latin variants are recorded in the literature,
I have followed the forms used in the texts of Hell and his contemporaries.
French, British, Scandinavian, Russian as well as most Eastern-European and German
personal and place names are given in their current forms, with variant spellings given in
footnotes. In transliterations from Russian, the system of Library of Congress has been used.
Place names in present-day Finland are given in their Swedish forms, with their Finnish
equivalents in footnotes or inside parentheses.
The use of quotation marks is not entirely consistent. In general, inverted commas, ‘…’, are
used in the text to mark translations of book titles in languages other than English.
- 43 -
Furthermore, they are used for anachronistic terms not originating from the eighteenth
century. By contrast, “…” are used for direct quotations.
All quotations in languages other than English are translated or at least summarised in
English, either in the text itself or in footnotes. Unless stated otherwise, all translations are by
the author of the thesis.
Nearly all Latin abbreviations have been tacitly resolved. For example,
= societatem Regiam, societati (Hell’s own hand)
= non debet, observatio, tamen nomen (Hell’s secretary)
In cases where a word has been abbreviated without any sign added, the missing letters have
been supplied in [brackets]. For example,
= Gra[ti]as habeo, t[an]tum, unq[ua]m (his secretary)
However, certain Latin abbreviations have not been resolved. They are the following:
Cel., Celeb.
Celebris or Celeberrimus
famous or highly famous
Clar., Claris. Claris or Clarissimus
able or highly able
D., (D.D.)
Dominus, (Domini)
Mister(s), Monsieur(s), Señor(es)
è S. J.
è Societate Jesu
of the Society of Jesus
N.
Numerus
no. (number, used for periodicals)
p., pag.
pagina
page
P.
Pater
Father (of a catholic priest)
R., Rev.
Reverendus or Reverendissimus
Ra Va , Ræ Væ Reverentia(e) Vestra(e)
honourable or highly honourable
His Honourable Father(’s)
S.
Sanctus, Sanctum or Sancta Saint, San, Santo
SJ, S. J.
see è S. J.
As for other abbreviations, unless standard in academic writing or otherwise self-explicatory,
these are all listed at the beginning of the sections on Unprinted Sources and Literature and
Printed Sources and Literature below.
- 44 -
I.2 MAXIMILIANUS HELL SJ (1720-1792): A BIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY
non is sum, qui Summis cum Viris pari passu progrediar, sequor, ut possum, et si
cogitata, atque labores meos qualescumque non inutiles censeant alij, gaudeo equidem,
at tenuitatis meæ conscius, Summos in his Scientijs Viros tanquam à longe sequens
suspicio, venerorque
Maximilianus Hell to Jean Bernoulli,
20 December 1771 1
Much has been written on the life, character and career of Maximilianus Hell. An online
bibliography compiled by Sándor Hádobas currently lists more than 600 works on
Maximilianus Hell and his assistant, Joannes Sajnovics.2 Ranging from newspaper articles
and other kinds of popular science writing through editions of primary sources to
contributions in peer-reviewed journals, not all items listed in Hadobás’ bibliography are
worthy of taking into consideration here.
As a source-based study, this thesis aims to investigate primary sources and to contextualise
them. Of particular relevance are therefore other source-based studies, including editions of
texts written by Hell and his contemporaries. Two full-length books are devoted to the
biography of Maximilianus Hell, published by Ferenc Pinzger and Elena Ferencová, in 192027 and 1995 respectively. Pinzger published his two-volume biography in Hungarian, but
with extensive source quotations in Latin, German and French as well as a summary in
German, in commemoration of Hell’s 200th birthday. While his approach is somewhat dated,
Pinzger’s careful editing of primary sources in volume two gives his work a lasting value. As
for Ferencová, her biography was issued in Slovak shortly after Slovakia had become an
independent state and explores Hell’s background and career from a Slovak perspective.
Despite the lack of an apparatus of references in her book, her contribution is of scholarly
value mainly thanks to her presentation of numerous sources in facsimile or in translation. In
addition to these monographs comes a wide range of articles written primarily by Hungarian,
Slovak, Austrian and Scandinavian scholars, devoted either to Hell’s biography in its entirety
1
Hell to Jean Bernoulli III in Berlin, dated Vienna 20 December 1771 (UB Basel): “I am not the kind of person
who keeps pace with the greatest of men. I follow them the best that I can, and if my theories and my work,
however trivial, are not considered entirely useless by others, that fills me with joy. However, in full awareness
of my own insignificance, I try to follow the greatest of men in these [i.e., the mathematical] sciences as if from
a long distance, admiring and revering them”.
2
Hádobas 2008, available at http://mek.oszk.hu/06200/06237/06237.pdf (accessed 17 February 2011).
- 45 -
or to certain aspects of it. As for editions of primary sources, the most relevant for this part of
the thesis are volume two of Pinzger’s biography (in Hungarian, 1927), Ansgar Rabenalt (in
German, 1986) and Magda Vargha (in French, two vols., 1990-92).3 Pinzger, Rabenalt and
Vargha all present transcripts of letters illuminating various aspects of Hell’s career, in the
language of the original (Latin, German or French). In the present biographical essay,
extensive source quotations will be made in English, with the original transcribed in
footnotes. A considerable proportion of the letters and other archival sources presented here
has not been published before, whereas others will be quoted from the works listed so far.4
It is not the aim of this biographical essay to break new ground with regard to the
whereabouts or activities of Maximilianus Hell at all stages throughout his life. Given the
overarching aim of this thesis, to give a source-based analysis of Maximilianus Hell’s
contribution to the eighteenth-century Venus transit enterprise, his biography is not a main
issue per se. Contextualising his background and scientific career is nonetheless necessary in
order to grasp the ideological climate in which his works on the transits of Venus were
produced and how they were received. This does not imply a full-scale biography supplanting
earlier efforts. Rather, building upon basic knowledge that has already been established by
others and adding a couple of hitherto overlooked sources, I wish to contextualise his career
path and discuss certain cultural-political sentiments that seem to be of particular relevance to
the history of astronomy in Central Europe in the latter half of the eighteenth century. One
issue is Hell’s stance in relation to confessional questions, before and after the dissolution of
the Society of Jesus in 1773. Another concerns his attitudes towards ‘nationality’ and towards
Hungarian patriotism in particular. A third issue is his singular support of the Latin (and to
some extent the French) language as opposed to his own vernacular. These issues will not be
discussed on every page, but will be commented upon on various occasions throughout this
essay before they are discussed in a more systematic manner in the concluding section.
Section I.2.1 traces the whereabouts of Maximilianus Hell from childhood to priest and
professor, culminating in his appointment as Imperial and Royal Astronomer in September
1755. This part of Hell’s life took place at various locations in present-day Slovakia, in the
Austrian capital Vienna and in Transylvania, now a part of Romania. On each of these
3
For further details, see the introductions to Chapters II.3 and III.1.
It might be mentioned that in another part of this thesis, two texts by Maximilianus Hell concerning the transit
of Venus expedition to Vardø are edited (Chapters III.2 and III.3).
4
- 46 -
stations in his life, information found in the biographies of Pinzger and Ferencová has been
supplemented with other sources. For the Slovakian context, the proceedings of a conference
held in Banská Štiavnica in celebration of Hell’s 250th anniversary (in 1970), with papers in
Slovak accompanied by summaries in German have proven to be of particular value. Also a
more recent English-language contribution by Richard Kafka (2003) offers useful information
on the region of Hell’s childhood and youth. For Hell’s student years in Vienna, articles in
German by the Jesuit authors Johann Steinmayr (various papers from the 1930s) and Anton
Pinsker (1971) offer insight into the activities of the various Viennese astronomers and
physicists of Hell’s generation. Unfortunately, however, for all their scholarly depth these
articles are popular lectures and lack proper references. In Steinmayr’s case this weakness is
remedied by the editors Isolde Müller and Thomas Posch, who published his posthumous
papers in a special issue of the Acta Historica Astronomiae in 2010, furnished with footnotes
and introduction. As for Hell’s period in Claudiopolis, a magisterial study of the place of the
Jesuits in the intellectual and ideological climate of eighteenth-century Transylvania has been
offered by Paul Shore (in English, 2007).5 Finally, information on the obscure eighteenthcentury observatory in Claudiopolis and its bigger sister in Tyrnavia/Budapest has been
provided by Ferenc Szenkovits and Lajos Bartha (both in Hungarian, 2006).
In keeping with the overall aim of ‘breaking down national barriers’ exposited in Section
I.1.2.1 above, Section I.2.1 seeks to interpret the stations in the early career of Maximilianus
Hell in a broad regional context, which in geographical terms translates as the “Austrian
Province” of the Society of Jesus. A useful guide in this context is László Scilaz’ article on
“Austria” in the Diccionario histórico de la Compañía de Jesús (in Spanish, 2001). However,
the present thesis is first and foremost a study of the history of science, and astronomy in
particular. There exists no book devoted to ‘The History of Astronomy in Central Europe’,
meaning that various pieces of information has had to be culled from various sources.
Especially rich in information on “Jesuit mathematicians” in the entire German Assistancy of
the Society of Jesus (of which the Austrian Province was a part) is Karl Adolf Franz Fischer’s
comprehensive catalogue of the staff at the various Jesuit institutions in this part of Europe (in
German, 1978). Thanks to Fischer, it is possible to trace the careers of hundreds of Jesuits that
held chairs in the mathematical sciences in Central Europe all through the early modern
5
Shorter contributions by Jean Nouzille (in French, 1998) and Paul Shore & Maurice Whitehead (in English,
2010) offer further information on the broader context of Jesuit activity in Transylvania. See also Paul Shore’s
article on the Jesuits in Bohemia (2000).
- 47 -
period. In recent years, Nora Pärr (in German, 2001) and Cornelia Maria Schörg (in German,
2009) have delivered Diplomarbeiten (somewhat more elaborate than an average master
thesis) on the history of Viennese astronomy. These do present valuable information on the
careers of Hell and several of his contemporaries, but without referring to that important
catalogue. As a repertory of basic information on the various observatories in the Austrian
Province of the Society of Jesus, the online database by Maria G. Firneis, Hermann Haupt and
Peter Holl (in German, 2005) is likewise a helpful tool, but unfortunately it limits itself to
present-day Austria alone.6 Derek Howse’s “Greenwich List of Observatories”, issued as a
special edition of the Journal for the History of Astronomy in 1986, is an earlier effort that is
international in scope, but misses a few of the less conspicuous observatories of eighteenthcentury Central Europe.7 Agustín Udías has recently published a universal history of Jesuit
observatories in English, but he unfortunately misinterprets several key pieces of information
concerning Jesuit observatories in Central Europe as well (2003).
Given the confused and sometimes contradictory information given in the various
contributions listed above, I have tried to make the most out of the primary sources available,
both printed texts by Hell and his contemporaries and references in their correspondence. It is
my hope that a source-based undertaking like this one can inspire further studies on the
history of astronomy in the Central-European region as a whole.
Section I.2.2 gives an account of Hell’s years as a Jesuit professor and court astronomer
whose reputation in the Republic of Letters gradually grows, 1755-1768. This period takes
place in Vienna only. Hell’s Imperial Observatory has been studied in ample detail by Johann
Steinmayr, with further contributions by Nora Pärr and Cornelia Schörg amongst others.
Schörg’s thesis traces the place of the activities of Hell and his assistants in German-language
astronomical journals that were issued from the 1770s onwards, without neglecting the main
activities of Hell and other Viennese astronomers in the 1750s and 1760s. In this section,
however, as preparation to the international Venus-transit projects that are analysed in
subsequent chapters of this thesis, particular attention will be given to Hell’s international
contacts. This aspect of his career has been mentioned only in passing in earlier studies on
Hell’s career. In a recent article in French I have traced Hell’s contacts with French
astronomers, based primarily upon the surviving parts of his correspondence and articles in
6
7
http://hw.oeaw.ac.at/sternwarten (last visited 17 February 2011).
The set of amendments published in 1994 did not offer a complete picture of the region, either (Howse 1994).
- 48 -
Hell’s journal Ephemerides Astronomicae ad Meridianum Vindobonensem (Aspaas 2010). In
the present contribution, I try to link the international aspect of his work to the local context
of Viennese PR politics, based on the official work instruction that Hell received on his
appointment as Imperial and Royal Astronomer of Vienna. In keeping with the regional
context depicted above, that of the “Austrian Province” of the Society of Jesus, I also trace his
role as a ‘nodal astronomer’ in the Central-European region. Precisely this aspect of his
career, namely his networks and their political-ideological implications, has received scarce
attention in previous studies. One highly welcome exception is the most recent contributions
in the English language by the intellectual historian László Kontler (2011 & in press), who
also has plans for further contextualised studies of Maximilianus Hell. The historian Nora
Pärr, who in 2001 delivered her Diplomarbeit on Viennese astronomers, has just submitted a
doctoral thesis on the scientific milieu of Hell in Vienna, a study which is likewise likely to
bring our overall understanding of Hell’s career a long step forward.8
A subsection – I.2.2.1, offering ‘minibiographies’ of selected contemporaries of Hell – will
primarily be based on biographical lexica such as Constantin von Wurzbach’s nineteenthcentury Biographisches Lexikon des Kaiserthums Oesterreich, the Allgemeine Deutsche
Biographie and the Neue Deutsche Biographie, in addition to information found in primary
and secondary sources such as Fischer’s catalogue or the annotated edition of Franciscus
Weiss’ correspondence by Magda Vargha (in French, two vols., 1990-92). Again, this survey
has been complicated by the lack of anything near a comprehensive, source-based study of the
history of astronomy in Central Europe and its protagonists. This subsection will focus mostly
on Jesuit astronomers, some whose names are no doubt familiar to experts on the history of
early-modern science in this region and others who are far less conspicuous in the historiography. Furthermore, in order to offer a broader picture of the regional context, I will also
strive to include a few individuals who were not Jesuits, such as Benedictines or amateurs.
Section I.2.3, gives an account of the gloriously infamous explorer who travelled to “the end
of the European world”, 1768-1773. It should be said that the expedition to northern Norway
in 1768-70 and its immediate aftermath will not be treated here in anything near the detail it
could be, given the wealth of primary sources and secondary literature available. Instead, the
8
Title of thesis: Maximilian Hell und sein wissenschaftliches Umfeld im Wien des 18. Jahrhunderts
(‘Maximilianus Hell and his scientific milieu in eighteenth-century Vienna’, Universität Wien, 2011 [not seen]).
I have not had access to Nora Pärr’s work in the course of my study, nor has she seen my works in progress.
- 49 -
place of the expedition in international and Nordic history of astronomy will be treated in
ample detail in subsequent chapters of this thesis. In this section, it is mainly the CentralEuropean and non-astronomical part of the research programme of the two Jesuits that will be
placed under scrutiny. The journey as such is described in detail in Sajnovics’ travel diary, as
well as in numerous letters written by the two Jesuits during the expedition. In addition come
references to their experiences in various published reports and testimonies from various
persons whom they met during the expedition. There is no shortage of studies of the journey
as such and its reception. Important source-based contributions include: Littrow’s pioneering
(but regrettably biased) study of the preserved manuscripts (in German, 1835); an article on
the journey by the Norwegian historian Ludvig Daae (in Norwegian, 1895); the Hungarian
natural historian Ottó Hermann’s piece of travel literature based on an expedition in the
footsteps of Father Hell (in Hungarian, 1893); the Norwegian linguist Bente Martinussen’s
work on the Danish-Norwegian context of the studies of the Sámi language undertaken by
Sajnovics (in Norwegian, 1992); a host of works treating the same subject from a Hungarian
perspective by amongst others György Lakó (in German, 1970), Jozsef Erdődi (in German,
1970), Zoltán Éder (in German, 1977), Lajos Bartha (in Hungarian, 1983), Anna Jászó (in
French, 1983), Tiborc Fazekas (in German, 2001a & 2001b), Zsuzsa Vladár (in English,
2008) and the above-mentioned László Kontler (in English, 2011 & in press); contributions
on the religious aspect of this visit of Jesuits on Danish-Norwegian soil by Helmut Holzapfel
(in Danish, 1979), Johs. J. Duin (in Norwegian, 1984) and Sølvi Sogner (in Norwegian,
2003); a discussion of the impact of the expedition to the postal history of northern Norway
by Hallvard Tjelmeland (in Norwegian, 1995, pp. 58-65), several articles on the broader
Danish-Norwegian context of the expedition by the astronomer and university librarian Helge
Kragemo (in Norwegian, 1933, 1960, 1968), by the physicist and university lecturer Nils Voje
Johansen (in Norwegian, 2002; 2004; 2009, see also Aspaas & Voje Johansen, 2004a and
2004b); and by Truls Lynne Hansen and the author in the general introduction to the abovementioned report (in English, 2005; see also Aspaas & Lynne Hansen 2007; Aspaas 2008c
and 2008d). The main aim of this section is to present new sources illuminating the role of
Maximilianus Hell in the discovery of what is now known as the Finno-Ugrian language
group.
The fourth and final part of this essay, Section I.2.4, recounts the story of the ex-Jesuit
Maximilianus Hell, from the suppression of the Society in July 1773 to his death in April
1792. His highly controversial position in Viennese intellectual circles during a period when
- 50 -
freemasonry, religious toleration and ‘Germanisation’ spread across the Habsburg lands, has
been touched upon in previous studies such as those of Ferenc Pinzger and Johann Steinmayr
in the 1920s and 1930s. I try here to link their findings onto broader studies of the culturalpolitical history of Central Europe, primarily the magisterial study on Hungary and the
Habsburgs in the period 1765 to 1800 by Éva H. Balazs (in English, 1997) and works on
Austrian ex-Jesuits by the historians Helmut Kröll, Hermann Haberzettl and Wilfried Müller
(1971, 1973 and 1993 respectively, all in German).9 More recent contributions on the
Austrian Enlightenment in English include a collection of essays by Robert John Weston
Evans (2006) and a paper by Ritchie Robertson (2009). A far earlier contribution, which is
still of value because of its thorough examination of primary sources, is Joseph Feil’s study of
the failed attempts to establish an Academy of Sciences in Vienna during the reign of Maria
Theresa (in German, 1861). The aim of this section, however, is not so much to accomplish
any fundamental change of understanding of this period, but rather to single out Hell’s
position in a context that has already been depicted by others. I will include a couple of eye
witness accounts, by the Danish travellers Hviid (1777/78) and Münter (1784), which have to
the best of my knowledge never been used before in studies of Maximilianus Hell.
Furthermore, seemingly neglected parts of Hell’s correspondence, such as his letters to the
astronomer Jean Bernoulli III in Berlin and to the Agrian bishop Carolus Eszterházy, will be
used throughout this section.
One aspect of this biographical essay, which has not received much attention in previous
studies on Maximilianus Hell, is his attitudes towards the Latin language. In contextualising
this theme, I have used studies on the socio-linguistic situation in early-modern Central
Europe by amongst others István György Tóth (in English, 2000 and in French, 2003) and
Tomasz Kamusella (in English, 2009); on the pan-European context by Peter Burke (in
English, 2004); and on the role of Latin in Jesuit education by Joseph Brucker (in French,
1919). Hell’s stance in the debates concerning Latin versus the vernacular(s) surfaces on
numerous occasions in his correspondence and his published works, and will emerge on
various stages of this essay as well.
9
Through Wallnig 2011, I became aware of Antonio Trampus’ seemingly important book, I gesuiti e
l’illumismo: Politica e religione in Austria e nell’Europa centrale (1773-1798), Florence: Olschki 2000, but too
late to make use of it in the present study.
- 51 -
As to the length of this essay, my only apology is that apart from some brief and outdated
works, there exists no biographical study of Maximilianus Hell in English. A western
audience will hopefully appreciate the value in having the political, cultural and internalscientific contexts of Jesuit science in early modern Central Europe explained in some length.
I.2.1 FROM CHILDHOOD TO PRIEST AND PROFESSOR, 1720-1755
Central Europe in the eighteenth century was a diverse area in which various ethnic, linguistic
and religious identities co-existed. These were all influenced, to a greater or lesser degree, by
the policies of the House of Habsburg in Vienna. Although Charles VI (1685-1740, ruler from
1711) and Maria Theresa (1717-1780, ruler from 1740) were both indisputably pro-Catholic,10
Lutheranism and Eastern Orthodoxy still flourished in parts of the Kingdom of Hungary and
the Principality of Transylvania. There was also a marked presence of German speakers in
most parts of the empire, such as the mining areas in present-day Slovakia, where
Maximilianus Hell was born. Furthermore, various forms of Slavic were the mother tongue of
many inhabitants, in addition to Magyar (Hungarian). Broadly speaking, the intellectual and
political elite of the time would tend to be fluent in at least three languages: German, Latin
and French, and often Italian as well, plus the vernacular of their childhood, be it a Slavic or a
Hungarian dialect. Education was in the hands of the church, although from the mid-century
onwards, a set of reforms were implemented which gradually brought both lower and higher
education under increased state control.
The first part of this essay will aim to contextualise Maximilianus Hell’s path from a child
raised in a prosperous mining town to a novice, student, teacher and finally priest and
professor of the Society of Jesus. All stations in this part of his life are marked on Map 1.
Maximilianus Rudolphus Höll (later Hell) was baptised in the village Windschacht11 just
outside the town Schemnicium12 15 May 1720. His father, Matthäus Cornelius Höll (16501743) was an engineer (“Oberkunstmeister”) in the mining industry. Church documents from
Schemnicium call Matthäus Höll a Gen[erosus] D[omi]nus, that is a man from a well-to-do
10
A key legal document in this respect is the Carolina resolutio of 1731, a patent which restricted the religious
liberties of non-Catholics and secured certain privileges for Catholics. This patent lasted until 1781 (cf. Király
1969, pp. 117-122; Kontler 2009, p. 207).
11
Windschacht or Wintschacht (L, G) = Vindšacht or Štiavnické Bane (Sl).
12
Schemnicium or Schemnitzium (L) = Schemnitz (G), Selmecz or Selmecbánya (H), Banská Štiavnica (Sl).
- 52 -
family, and adds that he was natione Bohemus ex Schlackenberg, “a Bohemian by nation,
from Schlackenberg”. The place name “Schlackenberg” posed problems for the biographer
Ferenc Pinzger, who could not find it on any maps.13 Dušan Janota, however, locates the
birthplace of Matthäus Höll to the village now known as Horní Slavkov (“Schlaggenwald” in
German),14 approximately 110 kilometres west of Prague. Other sources point to an origin for
the Höll family in Bavaria (Bayern), indicating that Bohemia (Böhmen) may have been no
more than a temporary station in their migration. Be that as it may, Matthäus Cornelius Höll
installed himself as an engineer in Schemnicium in 1694 and was to stay there for the rest of
his life. A widower, he remarried in 1707 with Julianna Victoria Staindl,15 the daughter of an
official auditor (“Überraiter”)16 in Windschacht. Maximilianus Rudolphus resulted from this
second marriage. In total, the two marriages of Matthäus Cornelius Höll produced 22 sons and
daughters. He was already in his seventieth year by the time Maximilianus was born.17
Since the sixteenth century, the Schemnicium area had been among the most prosperous
mining regions in entire Europe. At the outset of the eighteenth century, however, the mines
were in decline and threatened by a total standstill due to flooding of ground water in the mine
shafts. Matthäus Cornelius Höll is said to have been well versed in mathematics, mechanics
and chemistry. He is particularly remembered for his invention of cunning devices for
emptying the shafts of water. Under his tutelage, and that of his oldest son Josephus Carolus
Höll, channels and reservoirs were constructed and various other improvements introduced
that turned decline into growth. Thus, in the year 1740 alone 2,429 Mark gold and 92,267
Mark silver were produced in Schemnicium. The population around 1750 is estimated to
20,000 individuals, making it the second largest town in the landmasses now known as
Slovakia. By 1763, nearly 6,000 workers were employed in the mining industry alone.18
Prosperity and success also stimulated an innovative and ‘curious’ spirit. In order to meet the
demand for qualified staff, a “Montanistiche Schule” (‘mining school’) was established in
Schemnicium in 1735, with a curriculum focusing on applied mathematics and physics. This
13
Pinzger 1920, p. 10. It might be added that “Schlackenberg” refers to mining activity: “Schlacke” means
‘slag’, whereas “Berg” signifies a ‘mountain’ or ‘heap’.
14
Janota 1970, p. 45. “Wald” means ‘forest’.
15
In an auto-bibliography, preserved in his own hand and dated Vienna 9 June 1773 (Vargha priv.), Hell spells
the name of his mother “Juliana Steindlin”.
16
“Überraiter” is interpreted by Weyss 1986a, p. 4 as “kaiserliche[r] Rechnungskontrollor”, by Pinzger 1920, p.
10, simply as “ellenőr” (‘controller’).
17
Information on Hell’s family has been culled mainly from Pinzger 1920 and 1927 (German summary), Janota
1970, Pinsker 1971 and Ferencová 1995. Quotations are from Pinzger 1927, German summary, pp. 6-7. Some
authors speak of Maximilianus Hell as one of 23, not 22 sons and daughters of Matthäus Höll.
18
Figures taken from Vlachovič 1970, pp. 31 & 42.
- 53 -
institution was followed by a “Praktische Lehrschule” in 1763, which in 1770 was renamed
again, to become a “Bergbauakademie”, or ‘Technical University for the Art of Mining’. By
this time, the mines in the Schemnicium area had already been established as a popular
destination for the study trips of intending mining engineers from various parts of Europe.
The proudest moment in the region’s scientific history is probably the organising of a
gathering for miners, metallurgists and natural scientists in Glashütte19 (a few kilometres
north of Schemnicium) in 1786, a meeting that resulted in the founding of the famous
“Societät der Bergbaukunde”, a truly international society for research in mining and
associated industries.20
At least two of Maximilianus’ brothers, the above-mentioned Josephus Carolus (1713-1789)
as well as Joannes Michael, pursued the career of their father to become mining engineers in
Schemnicium.21 Maximilianus Rudolphus, however, was sent to the schools of the Jesuits. As
in the case of numerous other Jesuits from the early modern period, it is not clear exactly
when or why his path was diverted from his familiar milieu. It may not have been a conscious
choice to begin with. One may assume that a teacher of his perceived the talents of the
schoolboy and presented to his family the idea of recruiting him to the Society of Jesus. The
boy’s parents, who were both Catholics, are not likely to have raised any objections. To have
a son in this prestigious society must have been a tremendous source of spiritual consolation
and pride, besides the more mundane advantage of having one less mouth to feed. Josephus
Carolus had by this time already established himself as an engineer in the footsteps of his
father. For the young Maximilianus Rudolphus there was no prospect of inheriting that
position. Besides, becoming a Jesuit did not mean a definite rupture with society at large.
19
Glashütte, Glaserhau or Glaserhütte (G) = Szklenó or Turócnémeti (H), Skleno or Sklené Teplice (Sl).
Unless otherwise stated, information on the history of the Schemnicium area is based upon Vlachovič 1970,
Tibenský 1970, Ferencová 1995, Kafka 2003 and Suhling 2006. The old mining town Schemnicium is nowadays
known as Banská Štiavnica, and lies in the heartland of Slovakia. It currently has a population of about 10,000,
and has since 1993 been found on UNESCO’s list of World Heritage (http://de.wikipedia.org/ and
http://en.wikipedia.org/, entries on “Banská Štiavnica”, accessed 8 December 2010). As for the “Praktische
Lehrschule”, the Technical University of Miskolc in northeastern Hungary (established 1949) prides itself to be
the legitimate heir of this institution and gives the year 1735 as its date of foundation on its webpages (official
web page of the University of Miskolc, http://oldwww.uni-miskolc.hu/uni/univ/booklet/4.html, accessed 5
January 2011). The legacy of the Societät der Bergbaukunde has for its part been taken over by the “Society of
Mining Professors – Societät der Bergbaukunde”, which in 1990 was (re-)established in Leoben in Austria
(http://www.mineprofs.org/, accessed 13 January 2011).
21
In fact, according to the Kurzgefaßte Beschreibung der, bey dem Bergbau zu Schemnitz in Nieder-Hungarn,
errichteten Maschinen of Nicolaus Poda (also known as Boda, or Poda von Neuhaus), who served as a teacher at
the Bergbauakademie, many of the cunning devices in place in Schemnicium around 1770 were invented by
Josephus Carolus Höll, not his father (cf. Poda 1771, pp. 51, 54, 57, 61, 66, 70, 74). A particular device in
Windschacht, however, is said to have been introduced by Matthäus Cornelius Höll in 1711 (Poda 1771, pp. 4143).
20
- 54 -
Jesuits professors were teaching and preaching far and wide, both inside and outside of
ecclesiastical institutions. They were not monks in the same sense as the members of certain
other Catholic orders, known to have founded abbeys in the countryside where they lived
lives in seclusion, withdrawn from the rest of society. Neither to his family nor to himself,
then, a career path within the Jesuit system is likely to have been perceived as a bad idea.
After attending elementary school in Schemnicium and the Jesuit Gymnasium (preparatory
school for university) in another mining town some 35 kilometres to the north, Neosolium,22
Maximilianus applied for membership in the Jesuit order at the age of eighteen, in 1738. He
was accepted and moved another 80-odd kilometres to the west as the crow flies, to the Jesuit
Novitiate in Trenchinium23 (near the present border with the Czech Republic), where he was
to spend his two years as a novice. Trenchinium was at that time an important regional centre
of the Jesuit order, hosting along with Vienna one of only two novitiates in the entire
“Austrian Province”. Like so many provinces of the Society of Jesus, the Provincia Austriae
reached across ethnic boundaries and comprised, in addition to present-day Austria, even
regions now known as Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Croatia, Slovenia and northeastern Italy.
Also known as the “Hungarian Novitiate”, Trenchinium was the place where most novices
from the old Kingdom of Hungary were sent in preparation for their lifelong service for the
Society of Jesus.24
At the time of the suppression of the Society in 1773, there were a total of 1,845 Jesuits in the
Austrian Province. The community may not have been large, but it was certainly diverse.
Thanks to a form that was filled in at the entering of each novice (this usually took place
when they were still in their teens, between 15 and 19 years old), it is possible to trace the
geographical and linguistic background of nearly all these individuals. In his article on
Austria for the Diccionario histórico de la Compañía de Jesús, László Scilaz presents the
results of a survey of these novitiate documents.25 Of the total number of “Austrian” Jesuits
who were around in 1773, 44 per cent were from Austria, 41 per cent from the Kingdom of
Hungary. The remaining fifteen per cent came largely from neighbouring territories under
22
Neosolium (L) = Neusohl (G), Besztercebánya (H), Banská Bystrica (Sl).
Trenchinium, Trenczinium or Trentschinium (L) = Trentschin (G), Trencsén (H), Trenčín (Sl).
24
The Kingdom of Hungary was in itself highly diverse. Former territories of this kingdom is now found within
the borders of eight countries: Austria, Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Romania and
Ukraine, besides modern Hungary itself (see for example Kontler 2009, chapter V).
25
L. Scilaz, entry on “Austria” in O’Neill & Domínguez (eds, 2001). See also Félix Litva, entry on “Eslovaquia”
in op.cit.
23
- 55 -
Habsburg or at least Holy Roman rule, such as Bavaria, Bohemia, Moravia, Silesia or Tyrol.
Knowledge of Latin had been instilled in all these Jesuits from childhood. Throughout the
early-modern period, the Latin language formed the core of the curriculum in the Jesuit
schools and use of this language was compulsory, even in conversation.26 As for vernacular
languages, Scilaz informs us that nearly 65 per cent of the “Austrian” Jesuits of Hell’s
generation were on record to have known German well (bene), whereas merely 30 per cent
were in command of Hungarian. Nearly as many mastered a Slavic language (seventeen per
cent Slovak, eleven per cent the language which in more recent times is known as Croatian),27
followed by seven per cent Italian, one per cent Romanian and one per cent French speakers.
If the heading quas linguas calleat (‘what languages he masters’) in the form was taken
literally, then bilingualism and trilingualism must have flourished among the novices of the
Austrian Province. The 18-year old Maximilianus was no exception. According to the list of
novices at Trenchinium, he knew Latinam, German[icam], Slav[icam] bene (“Latin, German
and Slavic well”).28 One notices the absence of Hungarian in this entry. Hungary in those days
was a composite state, and in the mountainous regions now known as Slovakia, Hungarian
was not commonly spoken. But as we shall see, even those who had no Hungarian could still
speak of themselves as a Hungarus and characterise Hungary as their patria (literally
“fatherland”).29
In Austria as elsewhere in Catholic Europe, the Jesuit order was a dominant factor in the
system of higher education. Despite their limited number, Jesuits ran numerous gymnasia
(preparatory schools for university) and collegia (comprising “Hochschulen” as well as proper
universities) in both urban and rural areas. To gain reputation as proponents of knowledge lay
at the heart of the global strategy of the Society of Jesus to (re-)conquer the world for
Catholicism and root out heresy. As spearheads of the Counter-Reformation in Europe and as
missionaries overseas, the Jesuits used science to wield an influence reaching far beyond
traditional spirituality. The founding fathers had already in 1540 drafted an instruction known
as the Ratio studiorum (in full: Ratio atque institutio studiorum Societatis Jesu, ‘Method and
System of the Studies of the Society of Jesus’), which after several revisions was codified in
1599. The 1599-version of this document was to remain an invariable guideline for all Jesuit
26
See for example Moutchnik 2006, pp. 40-41; Burke 2004, p. 54; Bruckner 1919, pp. 444-449.
It is difficult to find a neutral designation for the Slavic languages of the eighteenth century. For an unusually
well-informed discussion in English, see Kamusela 2009.
28
Nomina noviciorum secundum Ordinem, quo ingressi sunt in hanc domum probationis Trenchinij Provinciae
Austriae Societatis Jesu, under the heading Quas linguas calleat (quoted after Pinzger 1920, p. 13).
29
As for the concept Hungarus, see below.
27
- 56 -
activity until the suppression of the Society in 1773. According to the Ratio studiorum,
mathematical topics were to be taught at all Jesuit schools, a requirement that was quite
radical at the outset of the scientific revolution.30 One may assume that this, in its time
controversial, emphasis on mathematicae (‘mathematics’) took on greater importance as
interest in the study of natural sciences increased among Europe’s intellectual elites. In order
to succeed in their “ministries among the learned”,31 the Jesuits needed to produce professors
who could teach these subjects with authority. Our biographee was to become one of them.
After his two years in the novitiate of Trenchinium, Maximilianus Höll – or, as he later in life
preferred to name himself, Hell32 – enrolled at the University of Vienna in 1740. Academic
life in Vienna had by then been steeped in Jesuit erudition for more than a century. A Jesuit
Collegium (“Hochschule”) was opened in Vienna as early as 1550. After many political
intrigues, it was finally incorporated in the University in 1622/23. This move gave the Jesuits
a majority among the staff and virtually carte blanche to control academic life. Protestants
were expelled and Jesuit professors gradually took over most chairs. As for astronomy,
physics and other branches of ‘mathematics’, Jesuits soon became the undisputed professors
of these subjects.33 Beginning in 1746, the Jesuits also ran a “Hochschule” for young
noblemen in Vienna, the so-called Seminarium Nobilium or Collegium Theresianum
Vindobonense or simply the Theresianum, but this institution remained a separate entity.
Another separate institution was the “Orientalische Akademie”, a language school for future
diplomats in the East, founded in 1754 and under Jesuit leadership from the start. As for the
university, Gerhard Van Swieten (1700-1772) was to implement a sweeping set of reforms in
1749-52 at the request of Empress Maria Theresa (1717-1780, ruler from 1740). The reforms
of Van Swieten aimed to modernise the education system according to utilitarian principles,
and in this process, the dominance of the Jesuits was to some extent reduced. However, the
faculties of Theology and Philosophy (under which mathematics, astronomy and experimental
physics sorted) were still run by Jesuits until 1773.34 In a way, the early career of
30
See for example Smolarski 2002.
The phrase used by Harris 1996. See also Bireley 2003 for a broad analysis of the counter-reforming strategies
of the Jesuit order in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.
32
Höll should, according to traditional transliteration, be Latinized Hœll. However, as Pinzger conjectures
(Pinzger 1920, p. 9) the pious Jesuit probably wanted to avoid association with the German word for Hell – “die
Hölle” – by changing his name to Hell. This spelling should instead allude to the German word for bright, “hell”.
When writing this text in English, it is hard not to see the irony of the story.
33
For a detailed account on the Jesuits and the Vienna University in the period from the 1540s to the 1620s, see
Perkmann 1866.
34
On the impact of the university reforms imposed by the personal physician of Maria Theresa, Gerhard Van
Swieten, see for example Müller 1993, pp. 229-233.
31
- 57 -
Maximilianus Hell was both protected from and promoted by these reforms. On the one hand,
he enrolled at the university well before Van Swieten’s reforms. On the other, he was later to
profit from these very reforms, in the sense that they resulted in more funding for astronomy
and other branches of ‘mathematics’ not only in the capital, but also in other university towns
in the Habsburg lands. With his cultural background from a family of engineers, he was – to
use the vocabulary of Bourdieu – in possession of a ‘cultural capital’ that was to fit well with
the utilitarian ideology promoted by Van Swieten.
Among the teachers of the courses in philosophy and mathematics attended by Hell during the
early 1740s, we find the polyhistor Erasmus Frœlich35 SJ (1700-1758) and the astronomer and
orientalist Josephus Franz36 SJ (1704-1776). Notably, Father Franz was the director of the
Vienna Jesuit Observatory, which he and Frœlich had constructed at one end of the
compounds of the Jesuit Collegium back in 1733-34.37 Franz soon recruited the young
Maximilianus to make observations in his observatory, apparently around 1743.38 Around the
same time, the gifted student in his spare time constructed sun and moon dials, as well as
globuses of the earth and the sky. These were probably included in the Museum Mathematicum, or laboratory of the collegium, which had been founded in 1714 and which occupied
a lower floor underneath the observatory itself.39 Hell also had his first (anonymous) work
published, a revision of a textbook in mathematics that had originally been published in
Italian in 1728, Elementa Algebrae Joannis Crivelli magis illustrata et novis demonstrati-
35
Also spelled Fröhlich, Frölich, etc.
Also spelled Frantz.
37
This observatory was 45 meters high, rising above the neighbouring buildings by approx. 24 meters, according
to Pinsker 1971, p. 102. See also Steinmayr 2010a (speech held in 1932) for further details. In the literature, the
Jesuit Observatory is often confused with the Imperial Observatory established in 1755 (for instance in Fischer
1978; Udías 2003, p. 29; Wolfschmidt 2009, p. 4).
38
Evidence is scanty. The only concrete mention of this year that I have come across in Hell’s letters is in a letter
to Bugge in Copenhagen, dated as late as Vienna 24 July 1789: “Quantos ego ab anno 1743., quo primae meae
jam extant observationes, per annos 46 vitae meas caussae promovendae astronomiae exantlaverim labores,
Posteri loquentur” = “How many strenuous works I have conducted in the service of astronomy for 46 years of
my life, ever since 1743, from which year my first observations are extant, will be talked about by future
generations” (quoted after Pinzger 1927, p. 154). Pärr 2001, p. 32, claims that Hell was hired as an assistant of
Franz at his observatory in 1745, but does not quote any primary sources (cf. Ferrari d’Occhieppo 1957, p. 27:
“Um 1745”). A manuscript biography that was probably written by Triesnecker and is today kept in the archives
of the Academy of Sciences in Vienna, gives the years “1744 und 1745” (Akad Wien, Nachlass Littrow.
A transcript is available on the internet: http://kastner-masilko.at/LebenslaufHell.pdf, accessed 13 January 2011).
The anonymous necrologue on Hell in Schlichtegroll (ed.) 1793, states “seit 1745” = “since 1745”. I have not
had access to Observationes astronomicae in speculo Viennensi 1734-50 factae or other publications by
Josephus Franz that might shed light on Hell’s earliest career as an observer (see the titles listed for example by
Heinrich Kellner, “Franz, Joseph”, in Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie 7 (1878), pp. 318-319).
39
Steinmayr 2010e (paper held in 1936), p. 263.
36
- 58 -
onibus et problematibus aucta (‘Joannes Crivelli’s Beginner’s Course in Algebra, Further
Explained and Expanded by New Demonstrations and Exercises’, Vienna 1745).40
Having finished his three-year curriculum in Philosophy and two years in Mathematics, Hell
spent the period from 1745 to 1747 as a teacher at the Jesuit Gymnasium in Leuchovia,41 in
the northeastern part of the Kingdom of Hungary. The subjects that he taught were
“humaniora” (Latin grammar, syntax, poetry, rhetoric), history and mathematics. Besides
teaching, during his Leuchovian years Hell also held occasional sermons in the church and
served as an assistant of the local clergy (Patris regentis socius). This historic town lay more
than 200 kilometres northeast of Hell’s hometown Schemnicium, in an area that was diverse
in terms of both denominations and ethnicity, known as Scepusium.42 An old “Sprachinsel”
for German-speaking inhabitants, Scepusium was a region where Protestantism early in the
sixteenth century had gained a foothold that it was only slowly loosing with the arrival of the
Counter-Reformation in these parts in 1674. Still well into the eighteenth century Leuchovia,
along with other settlements in Scepusium, had a comparatively loose cultural-political
affiliation to the Habsburg Empire not only because of the region’s remoteness from Vienna.
An exceptional degree of autonomy had been granted Leuchovia and other Scepusian towns
by the Kingdom of Hungary since the thirteenth century, and the political picture was
complicated even more by the fact that the right to tax these lands had been mortgaged to
Poland by the King of Hungary in the fifteenth century, an arrangement that continued until
1772. It is probably no coincidence that a large-scale uprising led by Franciscus Rákóczi II at
the outset of the eighteenth century, known as the War of Independence, had been nurtured by
considerable support in this part of Hungary. The presence in Leuchovia of a Jesuit
Gymnasium and other Catholic institutions may therefore be interpreted as part of Viennese
efforts to stabilise this area as a loyal hinterland of the empire (see below, on Transylvania).43
Back in Vienna in 1747, the 27-year old Maximilianus began his study of theology, which he
finished in 1751. In the latter year (or the year after) he was also ordained a priest of the
Society of Jesus. In the meantime, Hell issued the first edition of another anonymous work,
called Adjumentum memoriae manuale chronologico-genealogico-historicum (‘Manual of
40
I have not had access to this publication. According to Pinsker 1971, pp. 103-104, when compared to
Crivelli’s original, the amount of revision was considerable.
41
Leuchovia or Leutschovia (L) = Leutschau (G), Lőcse (H), Lewocza (Polish), Levoča (Sl).
42
Scepusium (L) = Zips (G), Spisz (P), Szepes (H); Spiš (Sl).
43
The modern Slovak town Levoča currently holds a population of about 15,000 and is since 2009 inscribed on
the UNESCO list of World Heritage (http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/620, accessed 6 January 2011).
- 59 -
Chronology, Genealogy and History for the Assistance of Memory’, Vienna 1750), a
chronicle of important names and events of relevance primarily to ecclesiastical history and
the history of the Habsburg empire that was to enjoy ten editions, the final and posthumous in
1802.44 Biographical evidence from this period is hard to find, and it is unclear to what extent
the theology student participated in scientific activities during 1747-51. At some point,
however, either in Leuchovia or in Vienna (the literature is not in agreement here), Hell is
supposed to have given private courses in “Markscheidekunst” (‘mine metrology’) to a group
of young noblemen in preparation for work in the mining industry. He first taught the son of a
Count “Königsegg”, then the sons of ten other aristocratic families.45 He is even said to have
been entrusted the task of translating into Latin the laws of the Hungarian mining industry,
which had until then been available in German only. With his background from a family of
engineers and the fluency in Latin he had acquired in the Jesuit schools, Maximilianus must
have been well suited for this task, his biographer Ferencová concludes.46
Hell passed his obligatory third year of probation back in Neosolium, in 1751/52. Neosolium,
where Hell had once been a pupil at the Jesuit gymnasium, was along with Judenburgum
(Judenburg) in Styria (Steiermark) one of only two places in the Austrian Province where
aspiring Jesuits were sent for their third and final year of probation. A prosperous mining
town, Neosolium probably resembled his hometown in many ways. However, unlike
Schemnicium, where the secular Bergbauakademie was of prime importance, the most
important cultural institution in Neosolium was the Jesuit gymnasium. Maximilianus was thus
back in his home region, but not in quite the same environment that he had been raised.47
Having finished his probation, in the summer and autumn of 1752 Maximilianus Hell was
briefly involved as a consultant for the construction of an astronomical observatory at the
44
I have only had access to an edition from Ingolstadt 1760 (Hell 1760b) and the Viennese edition from 1774.
According to Sommervogel 1893, p. 251, Hell kept this work anonymous until he made a revision of it in 1773,
published in Vienna the year after. This is confirmed by Hell’s own preface to the 1774 edition (Hell 1774b).
45
In Leuchovia, according to Pinzger 1920, p. 14 and Pinzger 1927 (German summary), p. 8. In Vienna,
according to the necrologue in Schlichtegroll (ed.) 1793, pp. 284-285; Littrow 1835, p. 4; and Stefan Lindinger
in Biographisch-Bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon Band XVII (2000). Place not specified, Ferencová 1995, p.
21. As to the identity of the Count, Rabenalt identifies him as Karl Ferdinand Graf Königseck (1696-1759), who
served as Hofkammerpräsident from 1754 onwards (Rabenalt 1986, p. 109).
46
Ferencová 1995, p. 21. The manuscript was allegedly delivered to Josephus Franz in 1749, but was apparently
never published (Schlichtegroll, ed., 1793, pp. 285-286). Franz was at this time the “Bergrath”, or senior official
overseeing the mining industry.
47
On the local history of Neosolium, see Ipolyi 1875.
- 60 -
Jesuit University in Tyrnavia.48 The Collegium Tyrnaviense had been founded as early as
1561 and had since 1635 been classified as a university. By the eighteenth century it was well
established as the leading institution for higher education in the entire Kingdom of Hungary.
Tyrnavia was also an important city in Hungary because it was here the Bishop of
Strigonium,49 or Primate of Hungary resided ever since large parts of the Kingdom were
captured by the Ottomans in the middle of the sixteenth century. The choice of Hell as a
consultant for the construction of the observatory in Tyrnavia indicates that he had by now
acquired a strong reputation in Jesuit circles. Construction works began in 1753 and were
finished in 1755. Observations started the year after, with Franciscus Weiss SJ as the director.
By then, however, Maximilianus Hell had already been given new tasks in another part of the
Austrian Province of the Society of Jesus – in an area that is nowadays placed firmly within
the borders of Romania.
Claudiopolis, or Klausenburg (German), Kolozsvár (Hungarian), Cluj-Napoca or simply Cluj
(Romanian), was the capital of the Principality of Transylvania.50 Although de facto ruled by
imperial governors since 1711 and formally given status as a Grand Principality (Magnus
Principatus) in 1765, Transylvania was considered to be a somewhat different spot on the
‘mental map’ of the Habsburg lands. Whereas vital parts of the Kingdom of Hungary, notably
the regions west of the river Tiszla, had proved rather unproblematic to reconquer for
Catholicism after the Ottomans were dispelled, the situation was quite different in eastern
parts of Hungary. The same applied to the even more easterly mountain passes of
Transylvania. At the time when Maximilianus Hell arrived to take over the chair as professor
of mathematics in Claudiopolis for the university year 1752/53, the Jesuits had officially reestablished themselves in this town since 1693.
48
Tyrnavia or Tirnavia (L) = Tyrnau (G), Nagyszombat (H), Trnava (Sl).
Strigonium (L) = Gran (G), Esztergom (H).
50
Transylvania (L) = Siebenbürgen (G), Erdély (H), Erdel (Turkish), Ardeal or Transilvania (Romanian). The
description of Transylvania in this and the following paragraphs will, unless otherwise stated, be based upon the
book by Shore 2007 and articles by Nouzille 1998; Marton 2007 & 2009; Bálint 2010 and Shore & Whitehead
2010.
49
- 61 -
MAP 1 TOPOGRAPHY OF HELL’S LIFE, 1720-1755
Windschacht (Štiavnické Bane): birth place, childhood, 1720Schemnicium (Schemnitz, Selmecbánya, Banská Štiavnica): pupil in lower classes, -1736
Neosolium (Neusohl, Besztercebánya, Banská Bystrica): gymnasium pupil 1736-38, tertianship, 1751-52
Trenchinium (Trentschin, Trencsén, Trenčín): novice, 1738-40
Vienna (Wien, Bécs, Viedeň): university studies, 1740-45, 1747-51
Leuchovia (Leutschau, Lőcse, Lewocza, Levoča): gymnasium teacher, 1745-47
Tyrnavia (Tyrnau, Nagyszombat, Trnava): observatory planning, 1752
Claudiopolis (Klausenburg, Kolozsvár, Cluj-Napoca): collegium professor and observatory
planning, 1752-55
Screenshot taken from Google Maps, map entitled “Topography of Hell’s life, 1720-1755”.
Map data © GeoBasis-DE/BKG (© 2009), Google, Tele Atlas, Transnavicom.*
- 62 -
- 63 -
The Transylvanian polity consisted of three groups, known as Siculi (or Shékely, Secui,
speaking a language closely related to Hungarian), Magyar (ethnic Hungarians) and Saxones
(or Sachsen, a German-speaking, largely Protestant group). In other parts of the Habsburg
lands, the rights of protestants were severely restricted and protestantism as a competing
cultural factor was effectively kept at bay by the pro-Jesuit policies of Vienna.51 Not so in
Transylvania, where religious freedom was observed and where Protestant groups were even
represented in the Diet. In this situation, the Jesuits were collaborating closely with the
Viennese court in their effort to integrate Transylvania in the Catholic and Vienna-oriented
culture that flourished in the rest of the realm.
The population of Claudiopolis itself numbered about eight thousand, and of this total a large
minority – if not the majority – were ethnic Romanians. Traditionally, nearly all Romanians
in Transylvania were Eastern orthodox, but they enjoyed no political representation in the
Principality. Since the re-arrival of the Jesuits in 1693, a double strategy had been launched:
either to win the population over to the Roman Catholic faith, represented by the Jesuits, or at
least to have them converted to the Uniate Church, or so-called Eastern Catholic faith. Despite
his nominal independence from Rome, the bishop of the Uniate Church was soon to be
supervised by a theologus “of Latin rite” who was to be consulted in all cases of importance.
However, Romanians with their traditional affiliation to the orthodox faith were not the only
challenge to the Habsburg Jesuits in Transylvania. There was also a marked presence of Jews
and Roma (“gypsies”) as well as Muslim Turks, Armenians and other ‘remnants’ of the
Ottoman era in this region. The situation was complicated even more by the flourishing of
both Calvinism and a special branch of Protestantism known as Unitarianism among the
Hungarian- and German-speaking inhabitants in Claudiopolis and its surroundings.
The Society of Jesus is known for its use of science and education for missionary purposes,
the Beijing court being perhaps the best known example. Astronomy was here the chief ‘ticket
of entry’ to the inner circles at court. In Transylvania, a set of Jesuit gymnasia were founded
to compete with the Lutheran schools. And perhaps most important, not long after the Society
officially re-entered the region, an old Jesuit Collegium that had flourished in Claudiopolis
51
It is estimated that Protestants made up almost one third of the population in the Kingdom of Hungary around
the mid-eighteenth century (Balács 1997, p. 41; cf. however Király 1969, Appendix C, where the percentage of
Protestants in the 1788 census is just short of 25%). In Austria itself, Protestantism was forbidden, but proved
difficult to root out. Forced migration of Protestant farmers to Transylvania was among the tools used in efforts
to combat ‘crypto-Protestantism’ during the reigns of both Emperor Charles VI and Empress Maria Theresa (see
for example Pörtner 2005, pp. 392-394). See also Király 1969, pp. 117-122.
- 64 -
between 1579 and 1606 was re-opened. The collegium soon had two branches; a theological
and a philosophical faculty. Included in the latter was mathematics in the widest sense. The
number of students grew steadily, from 50 in 1703 and 186 in 1711 to 387 in 1747, 427 in
1753 and 493 in 1771.52 Academic prestige also grew, and in 1753 the official designation of
the institution changed from Collegium Academicum to Alma Universitas.53
As of 1752, the Jesuits in Claudiopolis were about to construct a new collegium building as
well as a brand new astronomical observatory. This observatory was planned to become the
fourth Jesuit observatory in the Austrian Province of the Society of Jesus – Vienna, Graecium
(Graz) and Tyrnavia being the first three on the list. When Father Hell arrived, he was put in
charge of this task, which he however left unfinished.54 Besides planning and supervising the
construction work, he undertook experiments on electricity in the collegium’s Museum
Mathematicum, lectured as a professor of mathematics, preached in German and “Slavic” and
extended pastoral care for military personnel. He also published two textbooks, Varia
compendia praxesque operationum arithmeticarum (‘Various introductions and exercises in
arithmetics’) and Elementa mathematica naturalis philosophiae ancillantia (‘Basic mathematics for the aid of natural philosophy’), both printed in Claudiopolis in the year 1755.
Increased publishing of textbooks was part of the reform of higher education that had just
been initiated by the Viennese authorities: instead of just listening to their teachers’ dictation,
students ought to be furnished with textbooks, a proper curriculum. Hell’s textbooks were
issued in keeping with that decree. Even though he soon left Claudiopolis and quit teaching
mathematics for good, the two textbooks were reissued several times, in both Posnania55 and
Vienna, but apparently never revised. Thus, in the third edition of the Elementa mathematica
(Vienna 1761) we read in the exercises an example like this:56
A merchant in Claudiopolis, selling a Claudiopolitan short ulna [or ‘ell’, a
measure of length] for the same price as a long ulna was bought in Vienna,
wishes to know the profit per cent. Since five Claudiopolitan ulnae equal four
Viennese, this means that for every four Viennese ulnae there is a gain of one
Claudiopolitan. Accordingly, the sum should be stated thus [...].
52
Figures taken from Nouzille 1998, p. 327 and confirmed by Szenkovits 2006, p. 105.
Nouzille 1998, pp. 326-327; Marton 2007, p. 19.
54
For the plight of this obscure observatory, see Subsection I.2.4.1 below.
55
Posnania (L) = Posen (G), Poznán (Polish).
56
Hell 1761b, appendix, p. 35: “Mercator Claudiopolitanus vendendo ulnam minorem Claudiopolitanam eodem
pretio, quo empta est ulna major Viennensis, scire cupit lucrum pro 100. Constat autem quod 5 ulnæ
Claudiopolitanæ faciant 4 ulnas Viennenses, seu quod idem est, in quatuor ulnis Viennensibus lucratur unam
Claudiopolitanam dicatur ergo […]”.
53
- 65 -
This is applied mathematics, adapted for a local audience. But the Hellian textbooks are
examples of ‘applied mathematics’ in more than just one sense. In his introduction to a
supplement of exercises for further study at home, Hell bids his students farewell in the wish
that they “add to the Greater Glory of God through [them]selves and [their] efforts.”57
Incidentally, ‘to the greater glory of God’ (ad majorem Dei gloriam) was the motto of the
Society of Jesus. Missionary work and mathematics went hand in hand.
Before the academic year 1755/56 had started, Maximilianus Hell was called from the
outskirts of the Austrian Province to its very epicentre: he was to return to Vienna. His period
in Claudiopolis lasted barely three years.
I.2.2 JESUIT PROFESSOR AND COURT ASTRONOMER, 1755-1768
We may safely assume that Hell’s appointment as astronomus caesareo-regius (‘Imperial and
Royal Astronomer’) resulted from talent, contacts and timing. His talent in the mathematical
sciences, and astronomy in particular, had been noted in Vienna, Tyrnavia and Claudiopolis.
To the extent that formal merits were of any value, the fact that Hell had already published
three mathematical textbooks as well as a work of history of a kind that was frequently
included in almanacs was probably not regarded with disfavour.58 His contacts in Jesuit
circles included influential men like his former teacher Josephus Franz. Franz was not only
the head of the Jesuit observatory in Vienna and a prominent professor at the university, he
was also the head of the prestigious “Orientalische Akademie” and a private teacher of Maria
Theresa’s oldest son, the future Emperor Joseph II (1741-1790, co-regent from 1765, ruler
57
Hell 1761b, appendix, no page: “Valere vos cupio ad DEI Gloriam Majorem per vos, vestrosque conatus
augendam.” See also the Scholion 362 on page 230 (op.cit.): “Cursus Mathematici commendantur: […] è quibus
singulis prima Matheseos Elementa, si quando Tyrones petent, meminisse una mecum velim, moniti D. Pauli:
Omnia in Gloriam DEI facite. I. Cor. 4. v. 31.” = “The following courses of mathematics are recommended: […]
If beginners are to seek their basic knowledge of mathematics in those textbooks, I hope they will keep in mind
the words of Paul the Evangelist, [whatever you do,] do all to the glory of God (1 Corinthians 4:31)”. Curiously,
the reference to I. Cor. 4. v. 31 is a misprint for I. Cor. 10. v. 31. The gloriam DEI part, however, resonates
clearly enough.
58
In the first non-anonymous edition of the Adjumentum memoriae the following statement is made (Hell 1774b,
Preface, no page): “Quum ergo Chronologia, & Geographia sine Astronomia consistere nequeant; Historia autem
sine Chronologia, & Geographia Matrona sit cæca, omni fere momento halucinans, necesse est fateamur; Historiam tantum debere Astronomiæ, quantum debet Chronologiæ, et Geographiæ, quantumque utraque Astronomiæ;
Proprium itaque esse Astronomi solide tractare Chronologico-Historica” = “Since chronology and geography
cannot subsist without astronomy, and history without chronology and geography is a blind matron hallucinating
virtually every minute, we must confess that history is in debt to astronomy in the same measure as it is in debt
to chronology and geography. Accordingly, it is the prerogative of the astronomer to treat chronologicalhistorical subjects solidly.” This quote is not found in the 1760 edition (Hell 1760b) and I assume that it was not
included in the 1750 edition either. All the same, the linking of astronomy with chronology and history appears
to be commonplace.
- 66 -
from 1780). As for timing, in January 1755 the court mathematician Joannes Jacobus de
Marinoni (1676-1755) passed away. Marinoni had been active as a surveyor and astronomer,
and had bought numerous instruments for a small observatory in his home in the centre of
Vienna. In his will, Marinoni donated all the instruments of his private observatory to the
court.59 As it happened, in keeping with the university reforms introduced by Van Swieten, a
new main building of the Vienna University was just then being erected. It was now decided
to construct a new ‘public’, or ‘Imperial and Royal Observatory’ on top of this building. This
decision gave the observatory a prominent position in the centre of the capital. The public
observatory, conspicuously placed on top of the university’s new assembly hall, would when
finished tower some 37,9 meters above the street floor. While it should ideally have been even
higher in order to prevent the spears of a church and other buildings nearby to block the view
of parts of the sky, the fundaments of the building were not strong enough to support that.60
To begin with, Father Franz was put in charge of the construction, but soon another person
was called in to finish the task – the 35-year old Maximilianus Hell from the Jesuit University
in Claudiopolis.
The new court astronomer was called to his home university in September 175561 and began
formally in his new job in November. A work description dated 30 October 1755, preserved
in the University Archives of Vienna, gives the freshly appointed astronomus caesareo-regius
(‘Imperial and Royal Astronomer’) a wide range of tasks, which may be summarised thus:62
1) He is to maintain the stock of instruments; 2) He is to observe the trajectories
of planets; 3) He is to inspire the populace to make observations by inviting
people to his observatory; 4) He is to correspond with all major international
observatories; 5) He is to supervise the calendars [i.e., almanacs] and edit an
official calendar rid of superstition and astrology; 6) He is to hold courses in
practical mechanics; 7) He is to deliver periodic reports to the director of the
Faculty of Philosophy.
59
A detailed account of the instruments of Marinoni’s observatory was published in 1745, De astronomica
specula domestica et organico apparatu astronomico libri duo (Vienna), cf. e.g. Lackner et al. 2006, pp. 117 &
374-376; Steinmayr 2010a (paper held in 1932), pp. 169-170. For key dates of his biography, see Lackner et al.
2006, p. 16; Pärr 2001, pp. 20-26; Felix Schmeidler in Neue Deutsche Biographie 16 (1990), pp. 212-213.
60
Steinmayr 2010e, pp. 265-266.
61
Hell, Anleitung zum Nutzlichen Gebrauch der künstlichen Stahl-Magneten 1762, p. 13: “da ich im
Herbstmonat des 1755sten Jahrs ganz unverhoft und unverzüglich zu meinen gegenwärtigen Amt von
Clausenburg anher beruffen wurde” = “since I in September of the year 1755 was called, totally unexpected and
urgently, from Claudiopolis to the chair that I now keep here in Vienna”.
62
My summary, based on the document “Ernennung Maximilian Hells zum k.k. Astronomen, 1755.10.30 (Akt)”,
Archiv der Universität Wien, CA 1.2.102 (Universitätskonsistorium, Fasz. I/2, Studiensachen 102). 12 pp.
- 67 -
When discussing Maximilianus Hell’s career in the period 1755-1768, his work instruction is
a convenient point of departure. Although the document is frequently referred to in the
biographical literature, it has – to the best of my knowledge – never been published in its
entirety, in either German or English. In order to inspect it, as it were, from close range, each
point on the list will therefore be presented here in translation, albeit not in a strictly
numerical order. The last point on the list is formulated thus:63
7) He shall report every week to the Director of Philosophy about all His
observations and scientific correspondence. His further activities, what subject
matters that are to be included in His calendars and mechanics courses and what
works He is going to publish, He shall inform the Director about, to whom He is
to turn on all matters relating to his work.
One notices that the periodic reports to the Director (dean) of the Faculty of Philosophy are
supposed to be weekly, and the Imperial Astronomer is asked to turn to the director for advice
on “all matters relating to his work”. However, it is not stated that these reports ought to be
written, and although a fair amount of documents in Hell’s hand are included in an online
inventory of the Vienna University Archives, the documents that have been catalogued for the
internet mainly concern extraordinary issues such as renovation of the observatory rooms,
new arrangements for his lodging, etc.64 A detailed investigation of Hell’s interaction with
administrative and scientific staff at the university is in any case beyond the scope of this
thesis. Suffice it to say that the court astronomer lived in the upper floors of the university
building, directly underneath the observatory, along with his assistant (referred to as the
socius, bidellus or adjunctus), a servant (famulus) and a secretary (scriba). Furthermore, his
apartment had space enough to host a student of astronomy for shorter or longer periods. It
was a normal arrangement for astronomers in those days to live in the observatory building
itself. Given the nightly chores of an astronomer, this was convenient. Despite the formal
requirement of delivering weekly reports to the dean and consult him on all matters of
importance, there seems to have reigned an atmosphere of seclusion in the upper quarters of
63
Ibid.: “Siebentens wird er wochentl: allen fürgenommenen observationen, und dem Commercio Litterario dem
Directori Philosophiæ seinen bericht abstatten, und was ferner fürzunehmen, von welche Materien in den
Calendern, und Collegijs [scripsi; Collegys MS] Mechanicis meistens zu berühren und was zum Druck zu geben
seyn, von ihm Directore zu verstehen haben, an welchen er in allen sein amt betreffenden Dingen angewiesen
wird.”
64
Search on “Hell” at the server http://scopeq.cc.univie.ac.at/Query/volltextsuche.aspx (undertaken 4 January
2011).
- 68 -
the university building. In a letter of 1762, Hell refers to his apartment as “an almost sacred
space”, inhabited only by priests.65 His living quarters, at least, were not public.
6) The above-mentioned [i.e., Hell] is given responsibility for the courses for
future mechanics in mechanical, practical and calculatorial astronomy, which
He shall deliver in the German vernacular at a suitable time every Sunday in the
Philosophical lecture hall, and illustrate by means of mechanical experiments.
He is to announce these courses by way of posters of invitation hung up in
advance.66
Hell’s activity as a lecturer is in need of further study. Karl Littrow writes that he held
lectures in “popular mechanics” for a year only, until he was forced to give them up because
his other duties proved too time-consuming.67 His background from Schemnicium was
probably the main reason why he was asked to deliver courses for intending mechanics in the
first place; his private teaching of noblemen a few years earlier may have been noticed as
well. Hell’s former teacher was probably influential here. In addition to his other duties, Franz
was also an official supervisor of the mining industry and may have seen the utilitarian
potential in having a court astronomer from a family of engineers recruited to the Vienna
University. In contrast to Littrow’s claim that Hell quit teaching mechanics after merely a
year, Konradin Ferrari d’Occhieppo in the Dictionary of Scientific Biography claims that there
was a “large attendance of Hell’s lectures”.68 This seems to be an exaggeration. Nothing
suggests that Hell ever became an “educator of the masses” in either astronomy or
65
Hell to Carolus Esterházy, Bishop of Agria, dated Vienna 6 August 1762 (Vargha priv.): “locus est ferè
religiosus, quem præter me, et Socium meum atque famulum, et Scribam, nemo alter sæcularium incolit”.
66
“Ernennung Maximilian Hells zum k.k. Astronomen, 1755.10.30 (Akt)” (archival reference as above):
“Sechstens werde obbenanter Astronomiæ Mechanicæ practicæ, und Calculatoriæ die Collegia Mechanica
beygesezet, welche er alle Sonnstäge in der teutschen Lands-Sprache in dem Philosophisch: Saal zu bequemer
Stund halten mit Mechanisch: Experimenten verständlich machen, und mit vorläuffig aufgehangener EinladungsTabell kund machen solle.”
67
Littrow 1835, p. 5: “Trotz der vielen Geschäfte, die ihm [i.e., Hell] die Einrichtung der neuen Sternwarte
verursachte, übernahm er noch das Lehrfach der populären Mechanik bei seiner Ankunft in Wien, eine Kanzel,
die dem Staate geschickte Künstler und Handwerker zu bilden bestimmt war. Nach einem Jahre sah er sich
jedoch gezwungen, dieselbe wieder abzugeben, da der Auftrag, jährlich Ephemeriden, nach dem Muster der
Parisen, herauszugeben, den er erhalten hatte, ihm viele Zeit raubte” = “Despite the many challenges the
construction of the new observatory occasioned for him, upon his arrival in Vienna he even took over the
teaching of popular mechanics, a professorship that was designed for educating skilled mechanics and craftsmen
for the state. However, after a year he found himself forced to give up this professorship because the task laid
upon him to publish an ephemeris for every year after the paradigm of that of Paris [i.e. the Connoissance des
Temps] proved too time-consuming for him.” Littrow’s account is repeated almost word for word by Bruhns in
Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie Band 11 (1880), p. 691. See also Schlichtegroll (ed.) 1793, pp. 288-289.
68
Ferrari d’Occhieppo, entry on “Hell, Maximilian” in Gillispie (ed.), vol. VI (1972), p. 234.
- 69 -
mechanics.69 He did, however, host individual aspiring astronomers in his apartment in order
to give them instruction in practical astronomy. Some students stayed for a few weeks or
months, some up to several years. In coming sections, some of these students will be
introduced. In the meanwhile, another point on the instruction needs scrutiny.
1) The Imperial and Royal Astronomer is to set in place a perfect arrangement
(“vollkommene Einrichtung”) for all the instruments pertaining to this study and
make sure they are calibrated when necessary and well taken care of.70
Interestingly, considering the fresh heritage of Marinoni’s instruments, Hell’s first task was to
mount and maintain the stock of instruments. The word “Einrichtung” has a wide
significance. However, contrary to Pinsker 1971, I do not interpret it as implying that Hell
was supposed to undertake “regular perfection and modernisation of the instruments”,71
merely that he was to take good care of the instruments that were already to hand. Fair to say,
however, Hell did acquire some instruments for his observatory over the years, but this act of
modernisation was not something that was required of him in his work instruction. A recent
publication on the history of the University Observatory of Vienna gives detailed information
on the stock of instruments that was available to Hell.72 It appears safe to conclude that the
Viennese observatory had far from the most up-to-date set of instruments in this period. On
this point, Hell was soon surpassed by for instance Christianus Mayer’s observatories in
Schwetzingen (established 1761) and Mannheim (established 1772), where considerable
resources were set in motion to acquire an impressive set of instruments from the best
instrument makers in England. In contrast, Hell had to make do with the heritage of Marinoni
and some occasional acquisitions.
2) It will be His responsibility to make daily observations of the trajectories of
the planets, thereby taking heed of the journals of observations that were begun
by, and continued through many years by the Gentleman de Marinoni, and to
enter His observations meticulously in suitable notebooks.73
69
Thus, early in the year 1777 Hell announced public demonstrations of practical astronomy in the Wiener
Realzeitung, but gave this up after less than a year, probably because of a failure to attract interest (Haberzettl
1973, p. 197).
70
“Ernennung Maximilian Hells zum k.k. Astronomen, 1755.10.30 (Akt)” (archival reference as above):
“Erstens wird der Kays: Königl: Astronomus die vollkommene Einrichtung aller zu diesem Studio gehöriger
Jnstrumenten ihre von Zeit zu Zeit anstellende Rectification und Verwahrung genau besorgen.”
71
Pinsker 1971, p. 105: “Laufende Vervollkommnung und Modernisierung der Instrumente”.
72
Hamel et al. 2010.
73
“Ernennung Maximilian Hells zum k.k. Astronomen, 1755.10.30 (Akt)” (archival reference as above):
“Andertens wird Jhme obliegen die tägliche observationes des Planeten-Laufs anzustellen, und hiemit die von
Se[ine]n E[dl]en Herrn von Marinoni angefangenen, und durch viele Jahre fortgesezte Ephemerides
Astronomicas aufzumercken, und in die hierzu gehörige bücher ordentlich einzutragen”.
- 70 -
This task, to make “daily observations of the trajectories of planets” needs not be emphasised.
Planets were of course an interesting phenomenon in themselves, but in the work instruction
they are no doubt singled out merely because this was a specialty of Marinoni’s. Hell
published, for his part, all kinds of astronomical observations for years to come in his public
Ephemerides, reserving no particular status to planets as opposed to other phenomena. The
fate of Marinoni’s journals is unknown, and even Hell’s manuscripts of observations – with
the notable exception of some of his diaries from the expedition in Denmark-Norway – have
not been found.
3) The populace (“das Publicum”) is to be urged and invited to make
observations of eclipses, occultations of stars, comets and other unusual astronomical phenomena by way of announcements in newspapers or posters at the
door.74
This task points forward to the many “Urania-Sternwarten” (‘Urania observatories’) that were
established, especially in the German-speaking world, beginning more than a hundred years
later. The Urania observatories were institutions established with the specific aim of
disseminating scientific knowledge, and had a much wider outreach than the Imperial
Observatory of Vienna was ever expected to have.75 “Das Publicum” was obviously a more
narrow concept in Hell’s age, and it should suffice to point to the singular event of the transit
of Venus in 1761. At the day of the event, the Imperial Astronomer retreated to a provisional
site of observation in the library of the Jesuit Collegium, while both the Jesuit observatory and
Hell’s own “public” observatory were crammed with people of the highest circles – the future
Emperor Joseph II among them.76 It is true, however, that throughout his career Hell did
receive less high-profiled guests at the observatory, foreign diplomats and visiting students
alike, like the travellers Hviid and Münter whom we will meet in a subsequent section of this
essay. In that sense at least, his observatory was a public institution, an integral part of the
‘public space’ of the Austrian capital.
74
Ibid.: “Drittens solle d[a]s Publicum zu denen Observationen der Finsternissen, Sternbedeckungen, Cometen
oder andern ausserordentlichen Astronomischen Erscheinungen durch die öffentlichen oder auf d[a]s Thor
aufgehangene Tabellen vermahnet, und eingeladen werden”.
75
See for example Wolfschmidt 2008 or Molvig 2010.
76
Hell 1761a, pp. 1-20.
- 71 -
5) all supervision of the calendars [i.e., almanacs]77 is bestowed and laid upon
Him. This responsibility will not only consist in making sure that everything
that may originate from the superstition of the ancients and the crowd or from
the unfounded astrology, giving advice on weather, pharmacy, bloodletting,
growth of plants or human coincidences, shall be completely avoided: he is also
to edit an astronomical calendar every year and to publish it in time.78
The main achievement of Hell was the Ephemerides ad meridianum Vindobonensem, the first
volume of which covered the year 1757 and which continued until the year 1806 (published
1805). In 1760, without revision of contents or lay-out it was renamed the Ephemerides
Astronomicae ad meridianum Vindobonensem, a name it retained until the very end. This
periodical not only contained tables of the rising and setting of the Sun and other standard
contents of astronomical almanacs: it also included articles and monographs on various
scientific subjects as appendices.79 The choice of Latin as the language of this publication
may seem odd today. Hell was, after all, supposed to disseminate astronomical knowledge to
the populace at large and to edit an official almanac for the Austrian lands, as stated in the
third and fifth tasks above. Why not use the vernacular, as the French did with their
Connoissance des Tems,80 published since 1679, an example that later was followed by most
other countries? The simplest way to answer this question is twofold. On the one hand, there
existed no single vernacular that covered all the Habsburg lands. On the other, knowledge of
Latin was widespread: it still functioned as a lingua franca, especially in the Hungarian part
of the composite state of which Hell was an official representative.81 In order to meet the
requirement of inspiring “das Publicum”, the Imperial and Royal Astronomer anno 1756 did
fine with Latin. Another issue that may have influenced his choice of language is that the
Latin of the Ephemerides proved excellent for international co-operation (see below).
77
“Calender” (or “Kalender”) in early-modern German is a broad designation corresponding to the English word
“almanac”. The German word “Almanach” is a late eighteenth-century import from French, which initially was
reserved for almanacs with poems (frequently referred to as “Musen-Almanach”), cf. Sühring 1979.
78
“Ernennung Maximilian Hells zum k.k. Astronomen, 1755.10.30 (Akt)” (archival reference as above):
“Fünftens wird ihm alle obsorg über die Calend[ern] überlassen, und aufgeleget. Diese wird nicht nur in jenem
bestehen, d[as]s alles, was von dem aberglauben d[er] alten und des Pöbels, und von der ungründl[ich]en
Astrologia für die Witterungen, Arzneyen, Aderlassen, Wachsthum der Pflanzen, und menschlichen Zufällen
herrühren kan, volkommen weggelassen werde, sond[er]n seiner obsorg wird beynebens obliegen, jährlich einen
Astronomischen Calend zu verfertigen, und zu rechter Zeit in Druck zu geben.”
79
See Sommervogel 1893 for a complete list of items published in the Ephemerides.
80
In more modernised spelling, Connaissance des temps. During 1762-67, it was renamed Connoissance des
Mouvemens Célestes, but changed back to its old name again after that.
81
Contrary to what is often claimed, that Latin was a specialty of the educated elite, István Tóth in his Literacy
and Written Culture in Early Modern Central Europe presents numerous examples of Latin spoken among
soldiers, merchants and other ordinary people in eighteenth-century Hugary (Tóth 2000, espec. pp. 130-145).
- 72 -
If Hell edited the official calendar in the large quarto format and stately Latin language, this
does not imply that his Ephemerides was the only almanac issued in the Habsburg lands.
Lesser format calendars flourished in the vulgar and sold tens of thousands each year.82 A
work of 1760, apparently Hell’s first publication in German, was related to his duty to
supervise the calendars. The title page of the work is telling:83
By Maximilianus Hell, Priest of the Austrian Province of the Society of Jesus,
Astronomer of the Imperial and Royal Majesties: A Brief Introduction to the
Paschal Celebration for the Common Lay Person, Including a Thorough
Refutation of a Work that Christoph Sigismund Schumacher, Calendar Author
in Dresden has Published in the Year 1760, Entitled ‘Investigation of the
Paschal Celebration from the Year 1700 to 2500’ (Vienna 1760).
Here we find the Imperial Astronomer refuting unorthodox views on one of the main
Christian celebrations. He does so as a Jesuit Priest and as the Imperial and Royal Astronomer
of Vienna. A couple of letters from Christoph Sigismund Schumacher to Hell, both dated
Posonium in the spring of 1759, are preserved. Schumacher there presents himself as an
almanac editor and astronomer who has previously stayed in Transylvania and eastern parts of
Hungary. He has had little success so far, but is determined to linger on in Hungary until God
decides otherwise for him.84 Apparently, Dresden was the next station in Schumacher’s life.
According to Pinzger, Schumacher was a Protestant, which could explain some of his
problems.85 As for Hell, he explains that he wrote this text on the paschal celebration “in der
gänz gemeinen bürgerlichen Muttersprach” (“in the truly vulgar civic mother tongue”)
because he wanted to reach the “gemeine Mann” (“common man”).86 Latin functioned well –
up to a point. Certain laymen could not read it, and when necessary, Hell switched language
in order to reach this segment of society.
4) In order to promote the honour of this capital and its university and to
administer it to the common good, the Imperial and Royal Astronomer shall
entertain a perpetual scientific correspondence (Commercium litterarium) with
82
See Tóth 2003 (various less detailed pieces of information are even found in Tóth 2000). A survey of the
various vernacular almanacs published in the Habsburg lands during the eighteenth century would be very
welcome (the lack of a separate section on almanacs in Kókay 1990 is regrettable).
83
Maximiliani Hell S.J. der Oesterreichischen Provinz Priestern Ihro beyder Kaiserl. Königl. Majest. Astronomi
bey der uralten hohen Wienerischen Universität Kurzer Unterricht der Oster-Feyer für den gemeinen Mann
samt der gründlichen Wiederlegung einer Schrift, welche Herr Christoph Sigismund Schumacher, CalenderSchreiber in Dreßden unter der Innschrift Untersuchung der Oster-Feyer von Anno 1700. bis 2500. verfasset
und Anno 1760. in Druk gegeben hat (Hell 1760c).
84
Schumacher to Hell in Vienna, dated Posonium (now Bratislava), March and 1 May 1759 (WUS Vienna,
secretary’s copy).
85
Pinzger 1920, p. 62.
86
Hell 1760c, preface.
- 73 -
all famous observatories abroad, and in so doing make sure that all observations
that are necessary for the advancement of geography be communicated to this
observatory by the foreign ones, and that no observations of the kind that other
astronomers are eager to receive, shall be neglected by him.87
From early on, Hell started to make international contacts. This can be perceived not only
from the appendices (‘Supplements’) of his Ephemerides, which give an idea of a rapidly
expanding network, but also from entries in prestigious journals like the Nova Acta
Eruditorum of Lipsia (Leipzig) or the Journal des Sçavans of Paris.88 The surviving parts of
Hell’s correspondence demonstrate that scientific correspondence with all major international
observatories was soon by and large accomplished. The Ephemerides seems in most cases to
have functioned as a springboard. The case of Paris illustrates this. In the autumn of 1757, two
Jesuit astronomers, Christianus Mayer (1719-1783) of Heidelberg and Franciscus Huberti
(1715-1789) of Herbipolis (Würzburg) travelled to Paris to visit its main scientific
institutions. Huberti brought with him a copy of the Ephemerides to show to the astronomers
of Paris, and in a letter to Hell dated 3 October 1757 he describes their reaction:89
Upon order from my Mæcenas, His most Honourable and Eminent Princeps
[i.e., Prince-Bishop, “Fürstbischof”] of Würzburg, I have found myself under
obligation to go to Paris, despite my wish to pay Vienna another visit. I showed
Your Ephemerides, which I had brought with me, to the astronomers of Paris. It
was pleasant so see how they at first sight raised their eyebrows, but soon
praised the great industry of the calculations and immediately asked me to
provide a copy for them from Germany. Only Delisle, a man who is advancing
his old age, very favourable to our Society and thoroughly outspoken, added
that he had great respect for Your calculations, but would have preferred that
87
“Ernennung Maximilian Hells zum k.k. Astronomen, 1755.10.30 (Akt)” (archival reference as above):
“Viertens, damit die Ehre dieser Haubt-Stadt, und Universität befördert, und dem allgemeinen Nützen gesteuret
werde, solle der Kays: Königl: Astronomus mit allen auswärtigen berühmten observatorijs ein beständiges
Commercium Litterarium unterhalten, und dahin meistens bedacht seyn, d[as]s alle zum aufnahm der
Geographie erforderliche Observationes Astronomicæ dem hiesigen observatorio von den fremden mitgetheilet,
und keine Gattung sothaner observationum von Jhme versaumet werde, woran and[er]e Astronomi einen Theil
nehmen wollen.”
88
See for example Nova Acta Eruditorum for February 1762, pp. 49-58; Journal des Sçavans, Octobre 1761, pp.
672-675. As for the latter case, there is preserved a copy of a letter from Hell to the editors of the journal in
Paris, dated Vienna 18 March 1761 (WUS Vienna). In this letter, Hell explicitly asks for a review of the
Ephemerides.
89
Huberti to Hell in Vienna, dated Paris 3rd October 1757 (WUS Vienna, secretary’s copy): “Reverendissimi, ac
Celsissimi Principis Wirceburgensis Mæcenatis mei jussu factum est, ut debuerim Parisios ire, qui Viennam
iterato proficisci maximi præoptabam. Monstravi Tuas Ephemerides quas mecum sumpsi Parisinis astronomis,
jucundum erat videre, ut primo aspectu supercilia attollerent, mox industriam maximam calculi depraedicarent.
meque extemplo rogarent, ut et sibi Exemplaria ex Germania compararem. Unus del Jslius Vir senio
appropinquans, et societati nostrae addictissimus, ac perquam sincerus, adjiciebat, se quidem permagni facere
tuos labores, malle tamen ut tempus Observationibus potius, quam calculo impenderes, respondi Te nec ab
observando feriaturum”. For more on the visit of Huberti and Mayer to Paris, see Moutchnik 2006, pp. 67-69;
152-154; 447.
- 74 -
You spent more of Your time on observations than on calculations. I answered
that You would not avoid the task of making observations either.
Probably as a result of the high standard of the Ephemerides, Father Hell received the title of
corresponding member (“membre correspondant”) of the Academie Royale des Sciences of
Paris shortly afterwards. This was the first time a representative of the Austrian Province of
the Society of Jesus received this honour.90 The nomination of Hell marked the start of a close
and long-lived – though sometimes rather strained – scientific cooperation between the
Imperial Astronomer of Vienna and his colleagues in France.91 Hell’s surviving letters bear
witness of a rather frequent correspondence with the major French contemporaneous
astronomers Lacaille, Delisle, Messier, Cassini de Thury, Chappe d’Auteroche, Pingré and
Lalande, from the late 1750s onwards (see Unprinted Sources, 1a and 1b). The court
astronomer of Vienna never visited France personally, and he never learned French well
enough to speak or write it properly. This did not hamper communication, however, as the
French astronomers would tend to write their letters in their own language while Hell
composed his in Latin. The same kind of bilingual communication probably took place
whenever he received French-speaking visitors.92 Outside the German- and French-speaking
world, Hell in the early 1760s forged contacts with colleagues at observatories in Madrid, St
Petersburg, Milan, Bologna, Florence, Padua and Stockholm, using Latin in all cases.93
The instruction of 1755 called for international, scientific correspondence “to promote the
honour of this capital and its university”: it is about Vienna and the World. However,
Maximilianus Hell was successful far beyond that, in collaborating with astronomers in
various places even within the Habsburg Empire. This brings us to the concept of the ‘nodal
astronomer’. The key node in the Habsburg lands, the Viennese Imperial and Royal
Observatory administered by Maximilianus Hell, was conspicuous on the international arena
not only by means of the capital it represented, but also through the sheer number of smaller
90
Weiss to Hell in Vienna, dated Tyrnavia 23 December 1758 (WUS Vienna, secr. copy).
According to the Connoissance des Temps pour l’année 1760 (published 1759) and later editions, Hell was
formally appointed a corresponding member 23 December 1758. From 1758-62 his formal contact at the
Academie was Lacaille, from 1763-68, Delisle, and from 1769-92, Lalande.
92
The first verifiable visits took place in 1761, when Chappe d’Auteroche passed by on his way to Tobolsk in
Siberia, and Cassini de Thury arrived in order to observe the transit of Venus from the Jesuit Observatory and to
initiate a joint project of cartography: Chappe d’Auteroche, Voyage en Sibérie fait par ordre du Roi en 1761,
Paris 1768, entries 31 December 1760 – 8 January 1761 (ed. Mervaud 2004, vol. II, pp. 250-251); Cassini de
Thury, “Observation du passage de Vénus sur le Soleil, Faite à Vienne en Autriche”, in HARS 1761 (1763),
Mémoires, pp. 409-412.
93
See Unprinted Sources and Literature, 1a and 1b (Correspondence with England came much later, as we shall
have occasion to discuss in Section II.3.1 below.)
91
- 75 -
and less conspicuous ‘nodes’, which Hell brought to the awareness of his peers through
scientific correspondence and publications. This promoting was by no means all-embracive.
The refutation of Schumacher has been mentioned. Hell there put his authority as a Jesuit
priest and as Imperial and Royal Astronomer behind a – probably quite devastating – attack
on a simple almanac editor in Dresden. Needless to say, that amateur was never bestowed the
honour of having his observations published in Hell’s Ephemerides.
A counter-example is provided by Petrus Anich (1723-1766), a farmer and turning-lathe
operator from the village Oberperfuss in Tyrol. A eulogy of this man was included in Hell’s
Ephemerides Astronomicae for the year 1767. In 1751, at the age of 28, Anich had made his
way from his village to the Jesuit Collegium in nearby Oenipontum (Innsbruck), where he
presented himself to the Professor of Mathematics, Ignatius Weinhart SJ (1705-1787). The
published account tells how Weinhart perceived the man’s potential, and decided to teach him
during Sundays and other holidays. Soon, “thanks to his own talent and industry”94 Anich
emerged as a prominent surveyor and map maker in Tyrol. Weinhart’s correspondence with
Hell concerning this publication is preserved. Both in these letters and in the printed version,
the propaganda aspect of the story is made quite explicit.95 In a preface to the eulogy, Hell and
Weinhart explain how a recent publication on the scientific achievements of a Saxonian
farmer by the name Joannes Ludewig from Cossebaude had driven them to act.96 In that
publication, Ludewig’s example was used to demonstrate that “Saxony [Sachsen] owed to
Martin Luther” the fact that “even Saxonian farmers engage in philosophy and produce works
on mathematics and other exact sciences”.97 With great pathos, the two Jesuit professors extol
Anich as an example refuting that claim. According to them, Catholic farmers had proven
themselves to be at least as capable as, and probably even more capable than, Protestants to
make tremendous advances in the exact sciences. Thus, the eulogy was published to
94
Hell & Weinhart Elogium Rustici Tyrolensis Celeberrimi Petri Anich Oberperfussensis Coloni, Tornatoris,
Chalcographi, Mechanicarum Artium Magistri, Geodetæ, Geographi, et Astrophili ad Prodigium Excellentis…
1768, p. 7 footnote: “in iis, quæ præstitit Anichius longe plus debet sibimetipsi, talento suo, & industriæ propriæ,
quam mihi [i.e. professori suo Weinhart]” = “in the things Anich achieved, he owed far more to himself, to his
own talent and industry, than to me [that is, his teacher Weinhart]”.
95
The text was reprinted with corrections and additions in Oenipontum in 1768, after a resumé had appeared in
the Parisian Journal Éncyclopedique (Sommervogel 1893, p. 254). It is the Oenipontum version that I have had
access to.
96
See Johann Ludewig, Der gelehrte Bauer. Mit Christian Gotthold Hoffmanns Vorbericht nebst Kupffern
(Dresden, 1756), reprinted with a postface by Holger Böning, 1992.
97
Hell & Weinhart 1768, p. 3: “Saxoniam Martino Luthero libertatem sentiendi, & agendi suis sectatoribus
indulgenti in acceptis habere debere suum in scientiis progressum, adeo per omnes hominum conditionibus
propagatum, ut ipsi Rustici Saxones & philosopharentur, & Mathematicas, aliaque severissimas profiterentur
scientias”. Refutation of this statement is found on pp. 4-5 et passim.
- 76 -
demonstrate how the Roman-Catholic faith (and, one may infer, the Jesuits in particular)
encouraged and favoured the spread of science even among amateurs of ignoble origins.
The Imperial and Royal Astronomer thus went beyond his instruction geographically, ‘Vienna
and the World’ became ‘the Austrian Province of the Society of Jesus and the World’. But he
also went beyond it in another sense, by engaging in and promoting various sorts of science
reaching beyond his core subject of astronomy. Scientific disciplines were obviously not yet
as differentiated as they were to become in the nineteenth century. History and astronomy
were, for example, commonly perceived as neighbouring branches of learning. Another
neighbouring ‘discipline’ was meteorology. In various editions of the Ephemerides,
meteorological reports as well as discussions of meteorological instruments were included.
Hell’s assistant during 1762/63-1772/73, Antonius Pilgram SJ (1730-1793) later published a
608-page Untersuchungen über das Wahrscheinliche der Wetterkunde (‘Investigations on
What is Probable in Meteorology’, Vienna 1788). Pilgram’s Untersuchungen were based on
daily measurements made at the Imperial Observatory as well as published observations from
elsewhere in Europe.98 In 1761, Hell himself upon inspection of the meteorological journals
of the Jesuit observatory in Vienna believed he could predict the weather for years in advance.
He even wished to publish an “ephemeris of the weather” ahead of each year (Ephemerides
Meteorologicae is the expression he uses).99 When presenting this idea to Van Swieten,
however, Hell was made to understand that publication of such a work would not receive any
support from his part – Van Swieten would in fact make sure it was never allowed to see the
light of day. Hell had by then presented the rudiments of his theory in letters to colleagues in
Paris and elsewhere, and these circulated for years to come without receiving much
support.100
98
Pilgram 1788. On Pilgram’s work, see Posch & Lackner 2008; Steinmayr 2010d (paper held in 1933).
I guess this explains why Hell changed the name of his almanac to Ephemerides Astronomicae in this year; the
title was expanded in order to differentiate it from the intended Ephemerides Meteorologicae.
100
Hell presents his theory in letters to Weiss, dated Vienna 1 April 1761 (Vargha priv.) and to Lacaille in Paris,
dated Vienna 27 April 1761 (WUS Vienna). His unpleasant negotiations with Van Swieten are described in the
latter letter. The theory is exposited in an unfinished manuscript at the Wiener Universitätssternwarte, “Theoria
Phœnomeni Ascensus, et descensus Mercurij in Barometris”, addressed to the Academie Royale des Sciences
but possibly never submitted to Paris. However, in a letter to Röhl in Greifswald, dated Berlin 16 September
1772 (printed in Joh. Heinrich Lamberts …deutscher gelehrter Briefwechsel, Zweyter Band, 1782, pp. 397-400),
Johann Heinrich Lambert ridicules Hell’s meteorological theories, which he has had the opportunity to read
through. As late as 1783, a 30-page Freymüthige Gedanken über die Witterungslehre des Herrn Hells (‘Frank
Reflections on the Meteorological Theory of Herr Hell’) was issued by Georg Anton Däzel in Salzburg (I have
not had access to this publication. It is, however, listed in the online catalogue of Bibliotheksverbund Bayern,
www.gateway-bayern.de visited 1 February 2011).
99
- 77 -
Another side-branch of the court astronomer’s work was the fashionable subject of electricity.
Hell’s former teacher Josephus Franz used to perform electrical experiments in the Museum
Mathematicum and he had even published a Dissertatio de natura electri (‘Treatise on the
Nature of Electricity’) in 1751.101 Hell himself is known to have studied electricity during his
years in Claudiopolis.102 Although he never published the details of his experiments, they
were described by others.103 The experiences gained in the laboratory were also applied to
natural phenomena, such as the Aurora Borealis, witness the opening of a letter from Hell to
Weiss in Tyrnavia, dated Vienna 1 April 1761:104
Honourable Father Colleague in Christ! Many thanks for the observation and
elegant drawing of the Aurora Borealis that was observed in Tyrnavia. Your
observation is in harmony with ours in most aspects, for here in Vienna, too,
those tiny stripes as well as the ray that stretched out towards the north from the
first pyramid were observed. However, since I personally observed the phenomenon somewhat later, I failed to see both the ray and those numerous stripes.
Nor did I catch sight of those electric bundles to the left of the two northern rays
because there was too much moisture in the atmosphere. I did observe, however,
the three major beams. As for the cloud above the rays, I for my part could not
distinguish it from here, but because this phenomenon is an electric phenomenon, I told my guests during the observation itself that there was bound to be
a sort of cloud above the major rays, or at least some [accumulation of] thicker
air that held a higher or lesser degree of electricity than the mountaintops of our
Earth, from where it was capable of eliciting these rays. It filled me with joy that
this cloud, which I had seen only in my imagination, was in fact spotted in
Tyrnavia, [for] this cloud demonstrates wonderfully that this opinion of mine is
true, that the Aurora Borealis is an electric phenomenon.
Hell was later to discard this opinion and develop another theory on the Aurora, based on his
experiences in Norway (see Section I.2.3 below).
101
See Steinmayr 2010a, p. 178.
Hell refers to these experiments on several occasions, such as in the Anleitung zum Nutzlichen Gebrauch …
1762 and the “Aurorae Borealis Theoria Nova” 1776.
103
According to Pinsker 1971, p. 104, Andreas Jaszlinsky SJ included an account of Hell’s experiments in
Claudiopolis in his Institutiones physicae (‘Introduction to Physics’, Tyrnavia 1756). I have not had access to
Jaszlinsky’s textbook.
104
Hell to Weiss in Tyrnavia, dated Vienna 1 April 1761 (Vargha priv. In Pinzger 1927, p. 187 this letter is
wrongly dated 1 April 1766): “Reverende in Xto P. Collega! // Grates maximas pro transmissa observatione, et
eleganti delineatione Auroræ borealis Tyrnaviæ observatæ, hæc in plurimis convenit cum nostra, nam et his
Viennæ Striæ illæ parvulæ, et radius à pyramide prima in Boream protensus observatus est, sed cum ego tardius
phoenomenon hoc observaverim nec radium, nec strias illas multiplices vidi. fasciculos illos electricos ad
sinistram radiorum binorum borealium etiam non discrevi ob nimios vapores horizontis, cæterum radios majores
ego tres observavi. Nubem illam Supra radios ego quidem hic loci non potui discernere, attamen quia hoc
phoenomenon, est phoenomenon electricitatis, durante ipsa aurora boreali dicebam hospitibus, necesse esse, ut
Supra radios majores, nubes aliqua, aut certe aër densior habeatur qui majore vel minore electricitatis gradu
præditus sit, quam vertices montium nostræ telluris, è quibus radios hos electricos elicere valeat. Certe multum
gaudebam nubem hanc visam Tyrnaviæ, quam ego mente duntaxat videbam, quæ nubes sententiam meam:
Auroram borealem esse phoenomenon electricitatis, mirificè demonstravit esse veram.” (Hell’s own emphasis).
102
- 78 -
Even though electromagnetism in the modern sense of the word had to await the nineteenth
century, electricity was seen by many early-modern investigators to be in some way related to
magnetism.105 Father Hell was no exception in this respect. In 1762, he published his second
booklet in the German language, entitled Anleitung zum Nutzlichen Gebrauch der künstlichen
Stahl-Magneten (‘Introduction to the Useful Application of Artificial Steel Magnets’,
Vienna). Again, he is careful to state that he has not used the Latin language, but the
“common vernacular of our lands” in order to reach another readership than the “Gelehrten”
(‘erudites’): in this instance, the mechanics.106 Despite its title, the bulk of this richly
illustrated, 50-page booklet is devoted to explain how pieces of steel in various forms and
sizes may be applied with the strongest magnetic force possible. Hell also discusses, although
without going into details, a probable link between electricity and magnetism. For “the
magnetic phenomena”, the court astronomer had concluded already as a professor in
Claudiopolis, were “nothing else than a certain degree of movement of the electric matter”.107
The propaganda aspect of the Jesuit professor’s work, which we have witnessed already in his
Claudiopolitan textbooks on mathematics and in the Ephemerides Astronomicae, is present in
his German-language publication on steel magnets as well. “I hope”, he states at the end of his
introduction,108
that these Introductions of mine, which I have undertaken during my spare time,
will be adopted by the mechanics in exactly the same attitude that I have written
them, that is, for the benefit of the common good, which I finally exhort my
105
For a survey, see Heilbron 1979.
Hell 1762, p. [4]: “Die Ursachen, so mich zur Verfassung dieser Abhandlungen veranlasset haben, ware der
grosse Nutzen des Gebrauches, und die noch wenig bekante Kunstgriefe diese Magneten geschickt bey ihren
Kräften zu erhalten, eben jene Beweggründe waren es, die mich verbunden, daß ich selbe nicht in der gelehrten
lateinischen, sondern in der unsern Ländern gemeinen Mutter-Sprache vortruge; ich schreibe auch allhie nicht
für die Gelehrte, sondern nur denen geschickten Mechanikern unserer Länder, die jene Werkzeuge verfertigen
[…]” = “The reasons why I decided to compose these treatises [the booklet consists of four chapters, or
“Abhandlungen”] were the great utility of the device and the still not widely known technique for rendering it
powerful: precisely the same concerns obliged me make compose these treatises not in the learned Latin
language, but in the common vernacular of our lands. For I am writing this not for the erudites, but only for the
skilled mechanics of our lands, the makers of instruments like these [etc.]”.
107
Hell 1762, pp. 12-15, 39-40 & 49-50, quotation on p. 13: “[da ich zu Clausenburg] auch in der Magneten
Theorie nach vielfältigen versuchen, schon so weit gekommen ware daß ich den Schluß machte, daß die
magnetische Erscheinungen nichts anders, als ein gewisser Grad der Bewegung der Electrischen Materie seyen”
= “[…since I, while still in Claudiopolis] on the basis of numerous experiments already had made sufficient
progress even in magnetic theory to conclude that the magnetic phenomena were nothing other than a certain
degree of movement of the electrical matter”. As of 1 February 2011, the booklet is available on Google Books,
but with the plate of illustrations missing. This is, however, reproduced in Lackner et al. 2006, p. 167.
108
Hell 1762, p. [3]: “[ich] hoffe also diese meine nebenstündige Arbeiten werden von denen Künstlern in eben
jener Absicht angenohmen werden, mit welcher ich selbe verfasset, nemlichen dem gemeinen Besten zum
Nutzen, welchen zur grösserer Ehre GOttes anzuwenden, ich letzlich meine Leser erinneren wollen.”
106
- 79 -
readers to make use of for the greater glory of God (“zur grösserer Ehre
GOttes”).
The Jesuit motto, ad majorem Dei gloriam, in this German rendition is bound neatly together
with the utilitarian ideology. At this stage in Hell’s career, there was seemingly no conflict
between the Jesuit mission and the state-promoted slogan of utility.
Finally, one more remark on the international aspect. The court astronomer’s gradually
expanding network of correspondents has already been mentioned, as well as the way in
which the Ephemerides Astronomicae functioned as a platform for publication of
observations. However, Maximilianus Hell also made himself visible on the international
arena by issuing tables of the sun, the moon and the planets of our solar system. In
supplements to the Ephemerides Astronomicae for the years 1763 and 1764, new editions of
the solar tables of Lacaille, the lunar tables of Tobias Mayer and the planetary tables of
Cassini were issued.109 These were precious items for any skilled astronomer, but hardly any
bestseller candidates. In 1768, Hell also published a separate set of observations from China,
based on a manuscript of observations compiled by the Jesuit astronomer Augustinus
Hallerstein. In a letter to Hell’s colleague Weiss in Tyrnavia, the highly prolific science writer
Lalande, editor of the Connoissance, the French equivalent to the Ephemerides, expressed his
admiration of Maximilianus Hell for his being able to publish such voluminous works every
single year.110
Theoretical works and data sets connected to the transits of Venus filled many pages of the
Ephemerides during the 1760s, a material which will be saved for analysis in part II of this
thesis. Suffice it to say that, by the mid-1760s, the court astronomer of Vienna, and his
Ephemerides Astronomicae in particular, had certainly become conspicuous on the
109
Sommervogel 1893, pp. 239-240 & 253.
Lalande to Weiss in Tyrnavia, dated Paris 10 June 1764, comparing his own textbook, the Astronomie (1st edn
Paris 1764) with the Almagestum novum of Riccioli SJ (three vols., Bologna, 1651): “Riccioli vestigiis insistens
ejusdem amplitudinis opus suscepissem, sed librarium pro imprimendi sumptibus exequendis non invenissem,
difficile possumus Lutetiae mathematicos libros vulgare: difficile foret credere autorem pro maximo manuscripto
unum aut alterum exemplar sibi vix obtinere a typographo: miro amicum nostrum P. Hell etiamsi celeberrimum
ac doctissimum ephemeridum suarum volumen satis amplum quolibet anno posse vulgare” = “I would have liked
to follow in the footsteps of Riccioli and produce a work of the same length as his, but I would never have found
a publisher to cover the costs of its printing. It is difficult for us in Paris to publish books on mathematical
subjects; an author could hardly expect to receive a copy or two from the typographer in return for a voluminous
manuscript: I admire how our friend Father Hell, however famous and erudite, is able to publish a quite lengthy
volume of his Ephemerides every single year” (quoted from Vargha 1990, p. 57).
110
- 80 -
international arena. A new important node in the international web of astronomy had been
established.
Before we move on to the third chapter in his career, it might be worthwhile to reflect on the
specific locations of Hell’s life so far. When reading some of the literature, one gets the
impression that this was almost ‘meant to be’. At least authors who are themselves Jesuits
tend to paint such a picture of the time. If one reads two frequently quoted articles on Jesuit
astronomy published by the astronomer Johann Schreiber SJ in 1903, it is as though Hell was
‘ushered in’ on top of a wave of Jesuit mathematicians specialising in astronomy.111 Anton
Pinsker SJ in a paper from 1971 explains that around the mid-eighteenth century, the Austrian
Province of the Society of Jesus had almost two thousand members and ran 34 gymnasiums as
well as fifteen “höhere Schulen” (collegia).112 The natural sciences had traditionally not been
emphasised in these institutions, Pinsker admits, but in the decades around 1750 the Jesuits of
the Austrian Province were rapidly catching up with developments elsewhere.113 Johann
Steinmayr SJ (1890-1944) in a series of papers from the 1930s draws a similar story of
mathematical talent blooming in Jesuit circles in Vienna and elsewhere in the Austrian
province during Hell’s lifetime.114 In a more recent contribution, Agustín Udías SJ portrays
Jesuit astronomy throughout the early modern period as innovative and points especially to
the establishment of observatories as a key element in the emergence of modern science. The
story of the Viennese observatory director Maximilianus Hell receives considerable attention
in his account.115 The question remains, however: how unique was the career of Hell – were
there alternative career paths available to other talented astronomers of his generation? And
how important was the Jesuit order as a vehicle for the growth in institutionalised astronomy
in the Habsburg lands in the eighteenth century?
111
The two pieces were originally published in German in Natur und Offenbarung Vol. 49, 1903. I have only
had access to the English translations by William F. Rigge SJ (Schreiber 1904a and 1904b).
112
Pinsker 1971, p. 101. As for priests, there were 751 in the Austrian Province of the Society in 1750
(according to Shore 2007, p. 15 footnote 62).
113
Pinsker 1971, esp. pp. 100-102.
114
See the papers edited by Isolde Müller and Thomas Posch: Steinmayr 2010a-f and 2011.
115
Udías 2003, pp. 15-35, espec. pp. 27-29 (his account is, however, regrettably replete with errors as far as
central Europe is concerned).
- 81 -
MAP 2 COLLEGIA IN THE AUSTRIAN PROVINCE OF THE SOCIETY OF JESUS
WITH PROFESSORS OF MATHEMATICS DURING THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY
Claudiopolis (Cluj-Napoca): collegium founded 1579, university status 1753-1784, professor
of mathematics 1713-, observatory construction 1753-(unfinished)
Cassovia (Košice): collegium 1633, univ. status 1685-(?), prof. maths 1659Buda (Budapest): collegium 1685, prof. maths 1744- (univ. status 1777-, observatory constr.
1779)
Tyrnavia (Trnava): collegium 1561, univ. status 1635-1777, prof. maths 1636-, observatory
constr. 1753-56
Jaurinum (Győr): collegium 1627, prof. maths 1761Vindobona/Vienna (Wien): collegium 1550, incorp. in univ. 1622-, prof. maths 1560-, Jesuit
observatory constr. 1733-34, univ. observatory constr. 1755-56
Theresianum Vindobonense (Wien): collegium nobilium 1746, prof. maths 1748Zagrabia (Zagreb): collegium founded 1622, prof. physics 1663-, prof. maths 1770Graecium (Graz): collegium 1573, univ. status 1586, prof. maths 1582-, observatory constr.
1745
Labacum (Ljubljana): collegium 1597, prof. maths 1710Lincium (Linz): collegium 1629, prof. maths 1670Clagenfurtum (Klagenfurt): collegium 1604, prof. maths 1656Goritia (Gorizia): collegium 1621, prof. maths 1748Screenshot taken from Google Maps, map entitled “Provinciae Austriacae SJ collegia saeculo
XVIIImo mathematica colentia”. Map data © GeoBasis-DE/BKG (© 2009), Google, Tele
Atlas, Transnavicom.*
- 82 -
- 83 -
I.2.2.1 PARALLEL LIVES: ALTERNATIVE CAREER PATHS IN THE AUSTRIAN
PROVINCE OF THE SOCIETY OF JESUS
Map 2 shows all collegia of the Austrian Province of the Society of Jesus that in the
eighteenth century had a professor matheseos, or chair in mathematics (most, besides
professors in mathematics, also had professorships in physics, some even in geography,
mechanics, architecture or the like).116 It should be noted, however, that a couple of these
institutions did not employ a single professor of mathematics until quite late – namely
Jaurinum117 (from 1761) and Zagrabia118 (from 1770). This means that there were eleven
collegia with at least one professor of mathematics in their ranks at the time when
Maximilianus Hell embarked upon his scientific career. Five of these institutions might be
characterised as universities in the strict sense, namely Vienna and Graecium in Austria,
Tyrnavia and Cassovia119 in Hungary (now Slovakia) and Claudiopolis in Transylvania (now
Romania).120 As for institutionalised, practical astronomy, there were only three or four
Jesuit-run observatories in the entire Austrian province of the Old Society. These were located
in the university cities Vienna (constructed 1733-34), Graecium (1745), Tyrnavia (1753-55)
and Claudiopolis (construction begun 1753).
One way of contextualising the early career of Maximilianus Hell might be to present a series
of ‘parallel lives’. Using the observatories as focal points, the next pages will be devoted to
the careers of a few selected individuals holding key positions in astronomy and related
sciences within the Austrian Province of the Society of Jesus around 1750. Starting in Vienna,
the focus will shift to Graecium and then to Tyrnavia and Cassovia, before returning to the
Austrian capital. Tailing this ‘round trip’ some astronomers who were not Jesuits will be
introduced, as well as the plight of a Jesuit astronomer who left the Austrian Province to
receive a chair in mathematics elsewhere.
The Jesuit observatory in Vienna has already been mentioned. Its first director, Hell’s former
teacher Josephus Franz was not in need of a replacement until about 1754, from which time
116
Cf. Hellyer 2005, pp. 245-247.
Jaurinum or Gaurinum (L) = Raab (G), Győr (H).
118
Zagrabia (L) = Agram (G), Zágráb (H), Zagreb (Croatian).
119
Cassovia (L) = Kassau (G), Kassa (H), Košice (Sl).
120
It is not always easy to define what constitutes a university in contrast to a collegium (Hochschule, university
college) during the eighteenth century. For a well-informed discussion, see Frijhoff 1996. However, Frijhoff
omits Claudiopolis but includes Cassovia in his list of European Universities in the early modern period on pp.
80-94. Batllori 1985 delivers a clarification of the various meanings of the word collegium in the case of the
Jesuits. Based on his typology, I here treat Claudiopolis as a university alongside Cassovia.
117
- 84 -
Franz appears to have devoted most of his time to other activities than natural sciences. The
next director of the Jesuit observatory became Josephus Liesganig SJ121 (1719-1799). His
career forms the first in this series of parallel lives.
Born in the university town Graecium in 1719, Josephus Liesganig entered the Society of
Jesus in 1734. He thereupon studied philosophy in Vienna. During 1742-44, at the time when
Hell started as an assistant of Franz’, Liesganig taught gymnasium-level mathematics in
Graecium, thereafter rhetoric briefly in Lincium (Linz), before he returned to Vienna to finish
his theology studies. In the late 1740s, when Hell was preoccupied in Leuchovia, Liesganig
served as a preacher and the inspector at a German school in Camarum122 in Hungary
(roughly mid-way between Esztergom and Győr, this town now lies on the Slovakian side of
the border with Hungary). He thereafter passed his third year of probation in Neosolium
(probably in 1749/50, that is two years earlier than Hell). In the university year 1750/51 we
find him serving as a professor matheseos in Cassovia. Already in the year after, however,
Liesganig is back in the capital, now serving at the university of Vienna as a professor of
mathematics and assistant at the Jesuit observatory (Hell, it will be remembered, left Vienna
for Neosolium in the same year). For more than two decades, Liesganig was to have his base
in Vienna. This means he was close at hand when the astronomus caesareo-regius was to be
appointed, but for some reason the post was given to the one year younger Hell, professor in
remote Transylvania. In any case, Liesganig was soon to become123 appointed praefectus
(director) of the Jesuit observatory, a position he was to retain until the suppression of the
Society in 1773. As observatory director, Liesganig was above all given prestigious tasks in
geodesy; in present-day Austria, in the entire stretch between Brunna124 in the north via
Vienna and Graecium to Varasdinum125 in the south, and later in life in Galicia (on both sides
of the present border between Poland and Ukraine). His main work, Dimensio graduum
Viennensis et Hungarici was issued in 1770 and counts among the most important – albeit
certainly not the most historiographically highlighted – eighteenth-century contributions to
the determination of the figure of the Earth.126
121
Also spelled Liesganigg.
Camarum (L) = Komorn (G), Komárom (H), Komarnó (Sl).
123
Or had just been – various pieces of secondary literature are not in agreement with each other here.
124
Brunna, Brunnia or Bruna (L) = Brünn (G), Brno (Czech).
125
Varasdinum (L) = Warasdin (G), Varasd (H), Varaždin (Croatian).
126
See the review in Journal des Sçavans Aout 1770, pp. 573-574; cf. Liesganig’s letter to Bevis, dated Vienna 4
August 1767 (printed in Phil.Tr. Vol. LVIII. For the Year 1768 [printed 1769], pp. 15-16).
122
- 85 -
During the nearly twenty years that Hell and Liesganig were directors of observatories that
lay within a couple hundred meters from each other, the two seem to have been collegial
collaborators, although perhaps not close friends or confidants.127 It is not clear whether they
knew each other prior to 1755, the year when Hell reinstalled himself in Vienna as
astronomus caesareo-regius.128
Astronomy also had an institutional foothold in Graecium. Kepler had stayed here in the final
years of the sixteenth century, and Paulus Guldinus SJ (or Paul Gulden, 1577-1643) had
presented his influential theory of gravity at the same institution in the 1630s and 40s. A
hundred years later, in the year 1745, the Jesuits erected an observatory in Graecium. The
construction reached some 11,5 meters above the roof of the Collegium buildings. Like its
Viennese predecessor, the lower floors of the Specula Graecensis (‘Graecium Observatory’)
were reserved for laboratories or cabinets, known as the Museum Mathematicum and the
Museum Physicum.129 This institution had in all eight directors during its less than three
decades of existence as a Jesuit observatory.130 Petrus Halloy131 (1707-1789); Leopoldus
Mözburg (or Metzburg, 1711-1768); Carolus Scherffer (1716-1783); Josephus Pevere (1717?); Josephus Mayr132 (1720-after 1773); Nicolaus Boda133 (1723-1798); Carolus Tirnberger134
(1732-1780); and Antonius Mayr135 (1738-?). Their periods in office were as follows:
Petrus Halloy: 1745/46; 1748/49; 1750-52; and 1753-55
Leopoldus Mözburg: 1746-48
Carolus Scherffer: 1749/50
Josephus Pevere: 1752/53
Josephus Mayr: 1755-57
Nicolaus Boda: 1757-65
Carolus Tirnberger: 1765-71
Antonius Mayr: 1771-73
127
Thus, among the numerous letters preserved from the expedition to Denmark-Norway, none are addressed to
Liesganig. In fact, he is not even mentioned in any letter to Hell’s Viennese friends during this period (see the
letters listed in Unprinted Sources, below). See also Section II.3.1 below.
128
The account of Liesganig’s life in this section is based on Steinmayr 2010a (paper held in 1932), pp. 178-181;
Walther Fischer, “Liesganig, Joseph”, in Neue Deutsche Biographie 14 (1985); Fischer 1978; Pärr 2001, pp. 2930; Brosche 2009a, pp. 20-25.
129
Steinmayr 2011 (paper held in 1935), pp. 239-242.
130
Information taken from Fischer 1978.
131
Also spelled Pierre d’Halloy.
132
Also spelled Mayer.
133
Also known as Nikolaus Poda von Neuhaus.
134
Also spelled Tiernberger or Tirenberger.
135
Also known as Anton Mayer, or even Alois Mayr.
- 86 -
Apart from Halloy, who was born in the vicinity of Namur in present-day (then Habsburgruled) Belgium and who had been a professor of mathematics in Tyrnavia (1738/39), Vienna
(1739/40) and Graecium (1743-45) before he was put in charge of the observatory, the rest
were recruited from professorships west of Vienna. Thus, Mözburg had previously been a
professor of mathematics in both Graecium and Lincium, Scherffer in Graecium only, Pevere
in Goritia136 by the Adriatic and Boda in Clagenfurtum and Lincium. One director was even
recruited without having had a previous chair in mathematical sciences at all (Mayr). It is also
noteworthy that apart from the first and last (Halloy and Boda), they all served for a short
period. Nor was there, apart from some meteorological reports, ever initiated any publication
series for astronomical data sets from this institution.137
In a paper of 1935, Johann Steinmayr characterises the Graecium observatory as “all but a
stillborn child”.138 His paper is almost exclusively based on a German translation of the
annual reports (litterae annuae) of the Collegium Graecense and has many shortcomings that
are remedied by the introduction and comments of the editors Isolde Müller and Thomas
Posch, who recently published it in the journal Acta Historica Astronomiae. When comparing
this paper with the catalogue of “Jesuiten-Mathematiker” by Karl Fischer (1978), which is
based on contemporaneous catalogues of the Society, many discrepancies emerge. The
provocative conclusion of Steinmayr, however, remains noteworthy, and one may well ask:
how successful was this institution during its first decades of existence?
Both the appendices of Hell’s Ephemerides and surviving parts of his correspondence bear
witness of contact between Graecium and Vienna. This brings us to the second parallel life,
that of Josephus Mayr SJ. Fischer in his catalogue explains that Mayr was born in Passau (in
southeastern Bavaria) in the same year as Hell and that he entered the Society of Jesus in
1736. Unfortunately, however, I have been unable to find information on his early career
except for some piecemeal information that can be extracted from a single letter (presented
below). In 1755, at the same time as Hell’s appointment in Vienna, Mayr was appointed
professor matheseos and praefectus speculae astronomicae (‘director of the astronomical
136
Goritia or Goricia (L) = Görz (G), Gorizia (Italian).
If the manuscripts preserved at the Grazer Universitätsbibliothek are anything to go by, regular astronomical
observations were made in Graz in 1758-60, 1762 and 1764-1773. In addition, some astronomical observations
from the years 1746-47 are extant, as well as meteorological observations from the years 1754-56 and 1760-73
(information taken from Müller & Posch in Steinmayr 2011 and from email correspondence with Mag. Michaela
Scheibl at the Universitätsbibliothek Graz. I profit from this occasion to express my gratitude to them all).
138
Steinmayr 2011, p. 245: “das Institut […] blieb beinahe ein tot geborenes Kind”.
137
- 87 -
observatory’) in Graecium. Mayr still retained this position when Hell issued the first volume
of his Ephemerides, which he personally distributed to colleagues all over the Austrian
Province and beyond, including the director of the observatory in Graecium. Josephus Mayr’s
answer, for all its self-effacing humility, gives a quite vivid impression of the early years of
the Graecium Observatory:139
Honourable Father in Christ! A late response ought not to be reproached, when
various obstacles were in the way, and there was no harm in the delay. I am
grateful for the Ephemerides that you sent me. I have used them faithfully in this
my worn and all but dilapidated observatory, in so far as it was possible, given
my [limited] experience in astronomical matters. If only the fellow who, after
the death of pious Vanossius, got the task of delivering two practical lessons
every week assigned for himself, back in those days when we as colleagues140
learned the basics of mathematics, had given us at least some instruction [in
astronomy]! If only I had been given access to the observatory, either when I
followed lectures in Theology here in Graecium or when I taught Poetry and
Rhetoric in Vienna! Liesganig, whom I asked quite often [for permission to visit
the observatory], always found various pretexts to elude my effort, and in this
he followed the example of his patron [i.e., Franz?]. I was preparing to send you
the occultation of Palilicium [a star in Aldebaran], but as my observation was
inept, I was waiting for a second occultation of the Moon, after observation of
the first had already been spoiled by stormy weather. I would have liked to
139
Josephus May(e)r to Hell in Vienna, dated Graecium 17 October 1757 (WUS Vienna, copy in the hand of
Hell’s secretary): “R[everendissime] in Xto P[ater]! // Serum responsum reprehændi non debet, ubi varia illud
obstacula retardarunt, nec periculum in mora fuit. Gra[ti]as habeo pro transmissis Ephemeridibus, quibus in
lacera, et vix non ruitura specula quantum quidem in astronomicis experientia mea admisit fideliter usus Sum.
utinam ille qui ordina[ti]onem sibi ad facienda quot hebdomadibus bina Collegia practica a pie defuncto
Vanossio procuravit (dum elementa matheseos Collegæ hauriremus) Viam saltem aliquam ostendisset, vel dum
hic loci prælectiones Theologicas exciperem, aut dum Viennæ Poesim, Rhetoricamque Docerem Speculæ Copia
facta esset. Rogatus frequentissimè à me Liesganiggius, varijs semper excusationibus Conatum meum elusit,
patronum suum egregie secutus. Occultationem Palilicij parabam mittere, at cum manca fuerit observatio,
exspectabam [scripsi; exspectam MS] Lunæ defectionem secundam, primam enim tempestas scytica impedivit.
Observationes alias complures adjunxissem verum cum Organa astronomica (si tamen nomen hoc merentur)
examinare satis, per labores alteri officio annexos non potuerim, ijsque non sine gravi fundamento diffiderem Ræ
Væ aliunde multis distentæ laboribus vel in aliquot folijs perlustrandis molestiam adferre nolui. Paucis: Specula
mole Sua laborans, et ad speciem t[an]tum astronomicam ædificata, hoc et priori anno magnis Collegij impensis
a ruina integra conservata, instrumenta ex mente artificum, Sine ullo examine posita. verbo, ad observationes
publico comittendas inepta, revocantem post tot annos theoricas species, et nova moliri conantem prorsus
impediverunt. Author ipse Machinæ hujus Halloixius, qui consilio Saltem suo adesse debuerat, laborem omnem,
toties demisse rogatus subterfugiens insuper non modicas molestias fecit. mitto tamen duas observationes, quæ si
accuratæ minus Sunt, horologio per altitudines ʘ instrumento non satis acurato captas, correcto, nec in firmo
satis loco constituto pro humanitate sua Ra Va adscribet. aut si etiam velit Observatoris non sufficienti dexteritati,
nec enim unq[ua]m mihi hæc tractandi sat idonea fuit Suppeditata occasio. // Non odi Mathesim, quam primas
inter Scientias tenere probe novi. astronomia in delicijs esset, sed eos cuperem Socios, qui Comunicatis Consilijs
publico servire vellent, discerem à quocunque libenter dumodo opportunitas esset. // Jnterim sorte mea
contentissimus Vivo, et in eandem abeo cum singulis antecessoribus meis Sententiam, qui Græcensi Speculæ
adeo addicti non erant, ut se ab ea liberari aut non instanter peterent, aut saltem ab ea se liberatos non
gratularentur. Collegæ nomen q[uo]d Ra Va imerito dedit acceptassem lubentissime, nisi ea quæ attuli eodem
indignum me reddidissent. his me demisissime Commendo Græcij stirorum 13 Octob[ri]s 1757. Josephus
Mayer.” A set of observations accompany the letter.
140
“as colleagues” (Collegæ) seems to imply that Hell and Mayr were students in the same classes for a while.
- 88 -
attach numerous other observations to this letter, but since I was unable to
sufficiently investigate the astronomical instruments (if they indeed merit such a
name) due to obligations relating to my other task [i.e., as a professor of
mathematics?], and since I also had further and well founded reasons to distrust
their reliability, I decided not to infer upon His Reverend Father [i.e., Hell], who
is already absorbed in so many labours, the burden of going through several
pages [of that kind]. In brief, the observatory is labouring under its own weight,
it was constructed to display the looks of an astronomical tower only (in this and
the preceding year it was saved from total ruin to great expense for the
Collegium), and its instruments were constructed according to the ideas of the
instrument makers without ever being subjected to professional scrutiny. In one
word, they are inadequate for making publishable observations, and have
rendered completely fruitless my efforts to recall after so many years the
theoretical disciplines[?]141 and start working on new subjects [i.e., the practical
task of observing]. The very builder of this device, Halloy, who at least on his
own accord should have been interested to help, I have asked humbly for
assistance many times, but each time he has run off and even caused serious
trouble. I am, however, sending you two observations, which, if they are not
entirely accurate, His Honourable Father in his humanity will ascribe to the
horologe, which rested on a not very firm floor and which moreover had been
corrected by means of altitudes of the Sun that had been recorded with an
insufficiently accurate instrument. Or, if he should like, he may attribute it to the
insufficient dexterity of the observer, for I have never had a real opportunity to
handle them properly. I do not hate Mathematics, as I am fully aware that this
discipline ranks highest among the sciences. Astronomy ought to have been a
pleasure to me, but I would have liked to have such helpers that were willing to
serve the public good by sharing their advice. Indeed, I would be happy to learn
from whomsoever, if only I had the chance. In the meanwhile I accept my
destiny, and I take resort to the same attitude as my predecessors, none of whom
were so attached to the Observatory in Graecium as to prevent them from either
seeking immediately to be freed from this burden, or at least congratulating
themselves when they were freed from it. I would have loved to accept the name
of a “colleague” that His Reverence gave me so undeservedly, if not my
contributions had rendered me totally unworthy of such an honour. With this, I
most humbly recommend myself [to your prayers]. // Graecium in Styria, 13
October 1757. Josephus Mayer
Later in the same year, Josephus Mayr moved on to the chair in mathematics in Lincium,
where he taught until 1760, before moving to Clagenfurtum (1760/61) and then Buda
(1761/62). He did not return to teach mathematics at any of the universities proper, and seems
not to have pursued astronomy any further. The letter above is the only one from Mayr that is
preserved among Hell’s manuscripts in Vienna.
141
I am not certain whether my translation is correct. As for theorica, this a frequent expression for theoretical
astronomy (cf. e.g. Kirsch 1774 s.v.). However, the plural form used in this phrase, [instrumenta inepta] …
revocantem post tot annos theoricas species … impediverunt is difficult to interpret.
- 89 -
After Mayr, Nicolaus Boda SJ (or Nikolaus Poda von Neuhaus) became the observatory
director in Graecium. He was born in Vienna in 1723 and entered the Jesuit order in 1739.
Having studied at the Vienna University, he held his first post as a professor matheseos in
Clagenfurtum (1754-56). After a one-year intermezzo in Lincium (1756/57), he crossed over
to Graecium for the university year 1757/58, where he took over Mayr’s double role as
professor of mathematics and director of the observatory. In the autumn of 1758, he spent a
month at Hell’s observatory in Vienna, apparently to receive training. 142 However, Boda’s
only preserved letters to Hell display an interest in mineralogy and entomology as much as
astronomy.143 Indeed, the Boda of Graecium is remembered primarily as an entomologist and
as a correspondent with and proponent of the binomial system of Linnaeus (Carl von Linné).
One would have expected to see his observations included in the Ephemerides Astronomicae
of Vienna, but this never happened. Thus, when a lunar eclipse took place 17 March 1764, it
was not Boda, but Carolus Tirnberger, praefectus of the Graecium observatory from 1765 to
1771, whose observation was published in the Ephemerides.144 Interestingly, Father Boda
later became a teacher at the Praktische Lehrschule (since 1770 known as the Bergbauakademie) in Hell’s hometown Schemnicium. The same institution even employed Tirnberger
as a teacher from 1772 onwards. Boda, now under the name Poda von Neuhaus, became a
close friend and collaborator of Ignatius a Born (more on him in Section I.2.4), already before
the suppression of the Society of Jesus.145 When the international meeting for miners,
metallurgists and naturalists in Glashütte was organised in 1786, Boda was among the
participants. He is also said to have been the confessor of Leopold II (ruler 1790-92) before he
passed away in 1798.146
142
Hell to Weiss in Tyrnavia, dated Vienna November 1758 (WUS Vienna, secretary’s copy): “binæ erant causæ
Silentij mei. Prima: adventus astronomi Græcensis P. Boda, qui integro mense hic apud me comoratus, totum
fere tempus Sibi Vindicavit [scripsi; Vendicavit MS]” = “there were two causes for my silence. First, the arrival
of the Graecium astronomer Father Boda, who stayed here for a whole month and kept me preoccupied with him
almost all the time”.
143
Boda to Hell in Vienna, dated Graecium 11 November 1759 and 2 April 1761 (WUS Vienna, secretary’s
copies). In the first letter, Boda asks for forgiveness that he has been busy with other things than astronomy
lately: “I have been so preoccupied with the Museum that I became negligent of astronomy. I have put together a
collection of minerals and insects, following Linnaeus in the latter and Wallerius in the former. Work on these
collections has absorbed almost all my time” = “adeo distractus eram rebus Musæi ut negligentior fuerim in
astronomia. adornavi collectionem Mineralium, et insectorum, in his secutus Linnæum in illis Wallerium, quæ
fere omne tempus mihi eripiebant”.
144
Eph.Astr. Anni 1765 (1764), pp. 363-364.
145
Thus, Born published Poda’s Kurzgefaßte Beschreibung der, bey dem Bergbau zu Schemnitz in NiederHungarn, errichteten Maschinen in 1771.
146
Many dates are uncertain, such as when exactly Boda left Graecium for Schemnicium or when he returned to
Vienna. Apart from Wurzbach, Zweiundzwanzigster Theil (1870) I have had to rely upon Fischer 1978; Kafka
2003, pp. 48-51; http://de.wikipedia.org/, entry on “Nicolaus Poda von Neuhaus” (accessed 27 December 2010).
- 90 -
The examples of Josephus Mayr and Nicolaus Boda in Graecium demonstrate that it was not
sufficient to have the infrastructure in place (official observatory, equipped with instruments,
run by a professor of mathematics), you also needed key personnel with proper training and
dedication, and with the right attitude towards interaction with peers in other places. Another
feature, illustrated through the careers of Boda and Tirenberger as well as Hell himself, is that
Jesuit astronomers could move between ecclesiastical and secular institutions – between ‘pure
science’ and mechanics.
The observatory in Tyrnavia has already been mentioned.147 Given the mobility of Jesuit
scholars, who at least early in their careers tended to move around between various gymnasia
and collegia (in keeping with the motto docendo discimus, ‘we are learning by teaching’), it is
no great surprise that there were personal links between the observatory established in
Graecium in 1745 and the one constructed in Tyrnavia less than ten years later. Incidentally,
the rector of the University of Tyrnavia at the time when the observatory was built, Franciscus
Borgias Keri SJ (1702-1768) had previously studied and taught in Graecium. Keri published
various works on languages, history, physics and astronomy. He even acquired a reputation
for being the first – self-taught – producer of Dollond telescopes in Hungary. Keri may well
have been the initiator of the observatory in Tyrnavia.148
The first director of the Tyrnavian observatory became Franciscus Weiss SJ (1717-1785).
Thanks to a set of primary sources edited by Magda Vargha in the 1990s his career is well
documented.149 Born in Tyrnavia in 1717, Weiss entered the Society of Jesus in 1733 and
studied at the universities of Tyrnavia and Graecium. In the mid-1740s, he taught
“humaniora” at the University of Cassovia, and according to some secondary literature, even
at Jesuit gymnasia in Jaurinum and Scalis150 (nearly 60 kilometres west of Trenchinium, on
the border with the present-day Czech Republic). It seems likely that he spent time at the
observatory during his student years in Graecium. By 1750, Father Weiss had in any case
147
The observatory was 110 Paris feet high (35,7 meters). On the ground floor there was a Musæum Chemicum,
on the first floor, a Musæum Physicum, on the second, a Musæum Astronomicum and finally, on the third floor
were the living rooms of the astronomical staff. Above the living rooms was the observatory itself, 18 feet high
and rectangular in shape, with a length of 56 feet and a width of 40 feet (see Weiss, “Observationes Astronomicæ ad latitudinem, & longitudinem Tyrnaviensem inquirendam institutæ”, facsimile in Vargha 1992, appendix).
148
Steinmayr 2011, p. 247; Szerdahely 1785, p. 11 (facsimile in Vargha 1992, appendix).
149
The Correspondance de Ferenc Weiss. Astronome Hongrois du XVIII e siècle (two vols, 1990-92) contains
transcripts of numerous letters as well as some facsimiles, most notably the laudatio funebris by Georgius
Aloysius Szerdahely (Memoria admodum Reverendi ac Clarissimi Domini Francisci Weiss …Buda 1785).
150
Wurzbach, Vierundfünfzigster Theil (1886). Scalis (L) = Skalitz (G), Szakolcz (H), Szakolca (Sl).
- 91 -
acquired a strong interest in astronomy. Letters to Weiss from Carolus Scherffer, at that time
director of the observatory in Graecium, concern the pole height (latitude) of Graecium,
observations of an aurora borealis and details of various astronomical instruments. One letter
shows that in the summer of 1750, Weiss spent time in Judenburgum, a historical town
approximately 70 kilometres northwest of Graecium, where the Jesuits had a strong
presence.151 It is not unlikely that Weiss was here to finish his third year of probation, just as
Scherffer had done in 1747/48 (see below). Another letter demonstrates that the 33-year old
Weiss contemplated to make an expedition to Brazil during this time. From Scherffer’s advice
on how to proceed it emerges that this was meant to be an expedition in the style of the
geodetic surveys by Maupertuis in the Tornedal Valley and La Condamine in the territory of
Quito in the 1730s.152 Other sources show that in 1750 King John V of Portugal, in the
aftermath of a treaty signed with Spain concerning their Latin American territories, had asked
the General of the Jesuit order for ten Jesuits to be sent to map his dominions in Brazil. It is
intriguing to notice that Roger Joseph Boscovich SJ – soon to acquire fame for his survey of
the papal lands, which included a measure of the meridian between Rome and Rimini in
collaboration with Christophorus Maire SJ – also hoped initially to go to Brazil for the same
purpose.153 Nothing came of the plans for a Brazilian expedition, however. In the university
year 1752/53, at the time when Hell was present as a consultant for the planning of the
observatory, Weiss was appointed professor matheseos at the Tyrnavian university. From
1754/55 to 1776/77 he was the professor astronomiae and director speculae astronomicae at
this institution. Then it was decided to move the Hungarian University to present-day
Budapest, and Weiss followed to became the director of the new university observatory in this
city, in which capacity he died in January 1785.
Weiss and Hell no doubt met in Tyrnavia in 1752, and they corresponded frequently and
collaborated in many ways throughout their careers. Observations of Weiss were published in
the Ephemerides of Hell, in Bode’s Astronomisches Jahrbuch (issued in Berlin since 1776), in
the Journal Étranger and Journal des Sçavans in Paris as well as in a series of reports that
Weiss issued during his years in Tyrnavia (Observationes astronomicae … in observatorio
151
Scherffer to Weiss, dated Graecium 29 August 1750 (Vargha 1990, pp. 12-14, here p. 13): “Haec V[est]rae
R[e]v[erenti]ae, antequam Judenburgo abeat, prescribere volui: Si quid simile (ut non dubito, si tempestas serena
favit) observatum ibi fuit, id quaeso prescribat” = “I wished to describe this to His Reverence [i.e., Weiss] before
he leaves Judenburg: If something similar (which I doubt not, as long as the skies were clear) was seen there,
please describe it”. The preceeding part of the letter describes an aurora borealis seen in Graecium 26 August.
152
Scherffer to Weiss, dated 2 August 1750 (Vargha 1990, pp. 10-11).
153
See for example Hill 1961, pp. 25-27.
- 92 -
Collegii Academici Societatis Jesu Tyrnaviae in Hungaria habitae, Tyrnavia 1759-72,
covering the years 1756-1771). Like Hell, Weiss initiated a direct correspondence with
several leading astronomers abroad, among them Lalande and Wargentin. However, he
appears not to have become a formal member of any of the foreign academies, and his works
were limited to the field of practical astronomy.
Whereas the careers of Hell and Weiss established them as leading astronomers in Vienna and
Hungary respectively, it is noteworthy that there were other ways in which to pursue a career
in astronomy and related branches of “mathematics”. Absence of observatories did not imply
that astronomy was not studied at other collegia. In Cassovia, for instance, barely sixty
kilometres southeast of Trenchinium where Hell taught in 1745-47, a 291-page Hungaria
coelestis astronomiam et chronologiam in synopsi complectens (‘Heavenly Hungary,
Providing a Synopsis of Astronomy and Chronology’) was issued in 1741. The author of this
“Baroque synthesis of science and triumphalist history”,154 the university professor of
mathematics Michael Lipsicz SJ155 merits some consideration. Lipsicz was born in 1703 in
Ovaria,156 barely 20 kilometres south of Posonium,157 which was then the capital of Hungary.
Before his arrival in Cassovia, Lipsicz had taught mathematics in Claudiopolis (1736/37), that
is almost twenty years earlier than Hell. After his short period in Claudiopolis, Lipsicz stayed
at the Cassovian university during 1737-42, before he moved on to become a professor of
mathematics and physics in Tyrnavia (1742-45). Franciscus Weiss may have been among his
pupils. Lipsicz appears not to have engaged in practical astronomy, however, and most of his
works listed in an online bibliography compiled by the National Library in Zagreb treat
juridical or historical subjects.158 He did not take part in the flourishing of Jesuit astronomy in
the Austrian Province around 1750, but instead taught non-mathematical curricula or held
administrative posts at various Jesuit institutions within the Kingdom of Hungary (Tyrnavia,
Agria,159 Buda, Zagrabia, Jaurinum and Sopronium160 from 1745 until his death in Jaurinum
in 1766.161
154
Shore 2007, p. 164.
Also spelled Lipsics, Lipšić or Lipsits.
156
Ovaria, Ovarinum or Ad Flexum (L) = Ungarish-Altenburg (G), Magyaróvár (H), since 1939 merged with
neighbouring Wieselburg (G) / Moson (H) and known as Mosonmagyaróvár.
157
Posonium (L) = Preßburg (G), Poczony (H), Bratislava (Sl).
158
http://161.53.3.18/cgi-bin/unicat.cgi?form=010000000199990&id=0200705097 (accessed 7 January 2011).
159
Agria (L) = Erlau (G), Eger (H).
160
Sopronium, Sempronium, Oedenburgum or Scarabantia (L) = Ödenburg (G), Šopron (Croatian), Sopron (H).
161
Unless stated otherwise, biographical information on Lipsicz has been taken from Wurzbach, Fünfzehnter
Theil (1866) and Fischer 1978.
155
- 93 -
A more prolific science writer was Carolus Scherffer SJ, whose name has been mentioned
several times already. Scherffer was born in Gmunden (nearly 60 kilometres southwest of
Lincium, in Upper Austria) in 1716 and spent his school years in nearby Steyr. He entered the
Society of Jesus in Vienna in 1732, six years earlier than Hell’s ingressus in Trenchinium.
After his novitiate, Scherffer received education in classical languages in Leoben
(approximately 40 kilometres north of Graecium) before studying philosophy in Graecium.
Having taught for a year at the gymnasium in Krems, roughly 70 kilometres west of Vienna
(1738/39), he studied mathematics in Vienna in 1739-41, only a few years earlier than Hell.
Then followed another year of teaching in Judenburgum, before he returned to Graecium to
embark upon his studies of theology and canon law (1742-47). This means Scherffer was
present when the university built its observatory in 1745, at a time when Hell was receiving
his training at the observatory of Josephus Franz in Vienna. After his third year of probation
in nearby Judenburgum (1747/48), Scherffer emerged as the professor matheseos in Graecium
for the university year 1748/49. The year after, he served as the praefectus of the observatory
as well as the laboratory. It is from this period that his first letters to Weiss are extant. Already
in 1750/51, however, Scherffer moved to Vienna, allegedly because he failed to obtain the
money needed for modernising the stock of instruments in Graecium.162 For the rest of his life
(he died in 1783), Scherffer taught mathematics and physics at the University of Vienna.
Although his titles changed, he remained a highly esteemed professor and prolific author of
scientific writings in Latin and German. Despite never becoming its formal director, he also
made observations at the Jesuit observatory on several occasions; he was for example one of
the observers of the transit of Venus in 1761 from that site (See Section II.1.3). Like
Liesganig, Scherffer befriended the grand polymath Boscovich SJ during his visits to Vienna
in the 1750s and 60s and collaborated with him in various ways (See Section II.3.1). He is
also credited with being the first to introduce Newtonianism in a textbook of physics in the
Habsburg lands, in the two-volume Institutionum Physicae Pars Prima, seu Physica
Generalis and Pars Secunda, seu Physica Particularis (Vienna 1752-53). Scherffer’s literary
output was immense, in both physics, mathematics and theoretical astronomy. Like Hell and
Weiss, he corresponded with leading astronomers abroad.
162
H. Platzgummer, entry on “Scherffer, Karl” in Diccionario histórico de la Compañía de Jesús edited by
O’Neill & Domínguez (2001). It is not correct, however, as Wurzbach writes in the Neundzwanzigster Theil
(1875) of his Biographisches Lexikon, that no observations at all could be made, cf. the letters edited by Vargha
1990.
- 94 -
In terms of publicising, there seems to have existed a sort of division of work between the
major figures in astronomy and related sciences in Vienna at the time – Liesganig the
surveyor based at the Jesuit observatory, Hell the astronomer and almanac editor at the
Imperial observatory and Scherffer the disseminator of cutting-edge scientific theory at the
University.
The careers of these contemporaries of Maximilianus Hell illustrate the high degree of
mobility that was normal amongst Jesuits at the time. Indeed, the order seems to have
deliberately resisted specialisation and encouraged mobility. The mobility was not merely
geographical, but also scientific (between different branches of science) and institutional
(between various sorts of institutions). Josephus Mayr was born at the westernmost end of the
Austrian Province, taught in Graecium and other places in present-day Austria before he left a
last trace as a “mathematician” in Buda, in the middle of Hungary. Liesganig, despite being
born and educated in the university town Graecium, spent the early part of his career both to
the west and east of the capital before he settled definitely in Vienna, although in a position
which involved a lot of travel. Lipsicz taught around nearly all the Hungarian realm, but never
for more than a few years at each place. As a teacher and author, he even switched between
Law, Philosophy, Poetry and Mathematics. Scherffer was also moving around in his younger
years, but never (it seems) outside of present-day Austria. As soon as he was established in
Vienna as a professor in the mathematical sciences, he stayed there for the rest of his life.
Father Weiss, for his part, moved around between Jesuit institutions in present-day Slovakia,
Styria (Steiermark) and Hungary before he took root at the best university on Hungarian soil.
Thus, something Hell, Liesganig, Weiss and Scherffer had in common, was that they settled
permanently as soon as they acquired a position at an institution where they could pursue their
special interests.
The picture of astronomy in Austria around 1750 is not complete without a mention of the
Benedictine Order. Its wealthiest monastery was at Cremifanum (Kremsmünster) in Upper
Austria, roughly midway between Vienna and Munich (München). This abbey ran a
renowned gymnasium as well as a more recently established Hochschule (“Akademie”) in
theology and law for noblemen. In 1748, plans were laid for erecting an observatory at
Cremifanum. The resulting construction, which was to be seven storeys and 47 meters high,
- 95 -
was completed in 1758.163 Fully intact to this day, this “mathematical tower” has been used
for scientific purposes without interruption ever since. In the words of the historian of
astronomy Gudrun Wolfschmidt, it provides “an outstanding example of Baroque science”, in
which “all kinds of natural science, astronomy as well as geo science, seismology and
meteorology” were included.164
The specula Cremifanense was for the first couple of years directed by an Eugenius Dobner
OSB (1734-1799). From 1762 to 1791, however, its director was Placidus Fixlmillner
OSB165 (1721-1791). He had been born a few kilometres from the monastery and was a
nephew of the influential abbot Alexander Fixlmillner OSB (1686-1759), who appears to have
been a driving force behind the construction of the observatory.166 Having received
preparatory schooling at the monastery’s school, Placidus Fixlmillner studied at the
Benedictine University in Salisburgum (Salzburg), about 85 kilometres west of Cremifanum
in the 1730 and 40s. From 1745, however, he was to stay in Cremifanum as an abbot for the
rest of his life. Although he published a fair amount of works in theology, law and music, it
was as an astronomer that Fixlmillner acquired world-wide reputation. According to the
historically oriented astronomer Konradin Ferrari d’Occhieppo, he counts along with
Maximilianus Hell as one of the two “founders of modern astronomy in Austria”.167
Fixlmillner appears to have been largely self-taught in practical astronomy, making this
achievement quite impressive. His collaboration with Father Hell has been studied by Ansgar
Rabenalt OSB, who published an excellent edition of their correspondence in 1986. At least
by 1771, Hell and Fixlmillner had initiated a scientific correspondence that was to last
throughout their careers. Fixlmillner published his astronomical observations partly through
publishers in Styria (Steyr), partly in the Ephemerides Astronomicae of Hell.168
This sole Benedictine observatory along with the four Jesuit observatories and the public
observatory that was opened in Vienna in 1756, remained the only official ones in Austria and
163
However, according to Rabenalt 1986, p. 97 it was not ready for observations until 1760. For a contemporaneous account, see Fixlmillner’s “Kurze Geschichte und Beschreibung der Sternwarte zu Kremsmünster (nebst
drey Kupferplatten)” in Bernoulli, Sammlung kurzer Reisebeschreibungen … Vierter Band (1784), pp. 373-381.
164
Wolfschmidt 2009, p. 7.
165
Baptised Josephus Fixlmillner, as an abbot he was renamed Placidus. OSB = ex Ordine Sancti Benedicti (‘of
the Order of Saint Benedict’).
166
Wurzbach, Vierter Theil (1858).
167
Witness the title of Ferrari d’Occhieppo’s article of 1957, “Maximilian Hell und Placidus Fixlmillner: Die
Begründer der neueren Astronomie in Österreich”.
168
Information on Fixlmillner’s career has been taken from Wurzbach, Vierter Theil (1858) and Rabenalt 1986.
See also the useful overview of Fixlmillner’s life and writings in Anonymous 1881, pp. 95-98.
- 96 -
the Kingdom of Hungary until the latter half of the 1770s. A promising growth in the number
of observatories around 1750 was thus followed by more than two decades of standstill.
Benedictines mentioned, one should not forget the Protestants. There still existed, as already
explained, parts of the Habsburg Empire where the creeds of Luther were officially tolerated,
notably Transylvania and eastern parts of Hungary. Most prominent scholars from these parts
travelled abroad for their studies, since they in any case were banned from studying at the
Jesuit-run universities elsewhere in the Habsburg Empire. However, Protestants also ran their
own schools. A prestigious institution in this respect was the Reformed College of
Debrecinum,169 not far from Transylvania, in function since 1538.
To the best of my knowledge, no observatory was ever established at the Reformed College in
Debrecinum in the early-modern period, but one of its teachers, the medical doctor and
polymath Stephanus Hatvani (1718-1786) made a name for himself in experimental physics.
Among other things, after trips to western Europe in the 1740s he became a pioneer in
electrical experiments on Hungarian soil.170 Despite not having an observatory, Hatvani in
1757 was able to publish a 304-page Introductio ad Principia Philosophiae Solidioris cui
accedit Observatio Elevationis Poli Debrecinensis (‘Introduction to the principles of a more
solid philosophy, with a supplement concerning the geographical latitude of Debrecinum’).
Two years later, on 29 May 1759, the professor at the Reformed College contacted the
Imperial Astronomer in Vienna. He had read in the Latin-language newspaper Diarium
Viennense that Hell and Liesganig had recently observed Halley’s comet together with the
Emperor. He now wrote to inform the court astronomer that,171
on the very same day that You observed it [i.e., the comet] in the company of
His Highness the Emperor, the 3rd of May I too caught sight of it with my naked
eye. 9 o’clock of the same evening I showed it to our students, and at about the
same time on the following evening I demonstrated it to the highly illustrious
Judge of this city.
169
Debrecinum or Debreczinum (L) = Debretzin (G), Debrecen (H).
Morovics & Šperka 2006; see also Wurzbach, Achter Theil (1862).
171
Hatvani to Hell in Vienna, dated Debrecinum 29 May 1759 (WUS Vienna, secretary’s copy): “Die eodem 3 a
Maij quo Vos eum cum Augustissimo Jmperatore Spectabatis, ego quoque nudis oculis conspexi, ac hora 9 na
Vespertina hic studiosis nostris ostendi. Seq[ue]nti die Perillustri Civitatis nostræ Judici circa idem tempus
Vespertinum monstravi”.
170
- 97 -
Hatvani then proceeds to give the details of his observations, for which he used an eleven-foot
telescope that Weidler (an astronomer based at the Protestant University in Wittenberg) had
once provided for him. He adds that172
I am writing this to You, elevated Gentleman, for no other reason than that You
shall become aware that we who live in the flatlands are not idle observers of
Urania either [i.e., the muse of astronomy]. I beg You to forgive me, a person
whom You do not know even by name, for my daring to intrude in Your
arduous affairs. However, it is that common bond that unites all disciplines in a
sort of blood relationship, which has brought me, a man occupying the lowlands
of a teacher, to dare in this letter to address You, who thanks to your great
merits sits in such an illustrious chair.
This may be carefully timed tactics or sincere flattery. Anyhow, Hatvani did not miss this
opportunity to incidentally attach to his letter a copy of his printed determination of the
geographical latitude of Debrecinum. The Imperial and Royal Astronomer’s answer was no
less swift and enthusiastic than elaborate and respectful. Hell congratulates Hatvani with
being the first to have attempted to determine the geographical coordinates of Debrecinum.
What is more, he finds his observations sound and his calculations accurate. “You, whose
name, industry and experience in mathematical sciences have been known to me for quite a
while, ever since I lived in Transylvania”,173 he adds. Moreover, Father Hell furnishes
Hatvani with a calculation of coming occultations of the moons of Jupiter and encourages him
to make diligent observations of these phenomena so that even the longitude of Debrecinum
can be accurately determined. In all, he promises close collaboration and ends his letter by
urging Hatvani to174
please continue to bestow the same benevolence upon me in the future, and give
more honour to the learned world as well as our homeland (Patria nostra)
through publication of Your illustrious works.
172
Ibid.: “Hæc non alio fine ad Te Vir Summe scribo, quam ut ex his intelligas, nec nos, qui æquor ca[m]pestre
incolimus otiosos spectatores esse Uraniæ. Dabit autem mihi Veniam, quod ipse ego Tibi, ne nomine quid[em]
notus, Tua tamen ardua negotio interpellare audeam. Fecit nihilominus Comune illud Vinculum quod omnes
disciplinis cognatione quadam junxit, ut is, qui in [planio]re (vox vix legibilis; planiore coniecit Kraggerud)
scholastico versor, Te qui magno Tuo merito illustri loco sedes hac Epistola alloqui auderem”.
173
Hell to Hatvani in Debrecinum, dated Vienna 14 June 1759 (WUS Vienna, Hell’s draft): “Latitudinem Urbis
vestræ à Te, cujus nomen, industria, atque in mathematicis insignis peritia jam ante hæc mihi in Transylvania
versanti nota erant dudum, determinatam esse, multum Tibi gratulor, qui Primus, quod sciam, Urbi vestræ
certum in orbe locum designare aggressus sis”.
174
Ibid.: “Tu vero, et me, qua coepisti benevolentia prosequere, et orbem eruditum, Patriamque nostram
præclaris Tuis operibus ornare perge”.
- 98 -
Hatvani responds a few weeks later by assuring that he will indeed attempt to make the
observations expected of him, but that his lack of instrumentation poses serious problems.
Although he is in possession of a couple of telescopes and a decent pendulum clock, he has no
proper place to mount them and even misses a quadrant. By issuing his work of astronomy,
Hatvani says, “I wanted to state an example, so that others might discover that the Hungarians
(Ungari) would not be wanting in intellectual capacity, if only they had the patrons to provide
for them”.175
No further exchange of letters between Hell and Hatvani has been preserved in the manuscript
collections of the Vienna University Observatory. The example is nonetheless interesting
since it illustrates how two persons from competing religious denominations and of very
different status in society (court astronomer in the capital versus teacher in the countryside)
are able to communicate in mutual respect by appealing to patriotism (Ungaria, Patria
nostra) and the ideals of the Respublica litteraria (“a sort of blood relationship that unites all
disciplines”). If it did not work for Schumacher and Hell in 1759-60, it was not merely
because the former was a Protestant and the latter a Jesuit, as the Hatvani-Hell connection
demonstrates.
The example of Hatvani also brings the issue of amateurs to the forefront. It is often claimed
that as a result of the monopoly that religious orders – primarily Jesuits – enjoyed in the
teaching of natural sciences in the Habsburg lands, cultural interest in science inevitably
lagged behind as compared to the Protestant parts of the German-speaking world. Why pursue
an interest in astronomy, when there was nowhere to go to obtain funds for instruments and
other facilities, far less a salary as a professor?
However, in Austria as elsewhere there was the possibility of noblemen engaging in
astronomy or related sciences “for joy’s sake”. I have found only one example of such noble
“Dilettantismus” in the context of Maximilianus Hell. At the Castle Wetzlas near Pölla in
Lower Austria, more than 80 kilometres northwest of Vienna as the crow flies, a Johann
Felix von Ehrmans zum Schlug had built an observatory already in 1729. It was used by him
and his son to observe the Venus transit of 1761. A single letter from Ehrmans to
175
Hatvani to Hell in Vienna, dated Debrecinum 7 July 1759 (WUS Vienna, secretary’s copy): “specimen
aliquod dare Volui, ut illinc et[ia]m alij videant, nec Ungaris defutura ingenia, si modo Mæcenates haberent,
quorum opera invitarentur”.
- 99 -
Maximilianus Hell is preserved, dated Wetzlas 8 May 1761. Here, Ehrmans characterises
himself as a “Liebhaber der Astronomie” (‘amateur of astronomy’), and asks for advice on
where he can obtain solar filters for his two telescopes, a one foot and nine inches long
Gregorian, and a four-foot long Newtonian that he has ordered at the instrument maker
Schulz’ in Vienna.176 In the subsequently published report of the Venus transit of 1761, Hell
lends several pages to the observations of this nobleman, explaining that he had once been a
pupil of the court mathematician Marinoni, from whom he had bought a quadrant. Hell had,
for his part, helped him with the acquisition of the Newtonian telescope.177
Further investigation is needed to see how unique the example of the amateur von Ehrmans is
in the history of astronomy in the Habsburg lands.178 Amateurs of more modest means are,
however, also possible to find. The farmer-turned-surveyor Petrus Anich from Tyrol was
presented in the previous section. A Viennese example of an amateur of astronomy is the
painter Kaspar Franz Sambach (1715-1795), who from 1762 onwards had a career as a
professor and later director of the Academy of Fine Arts in Vienna. Sambach was also known
as an able observer. He used instruments that he himself had constructed to make observations
at various locations in Vienna, and received at least verbal support by Hell.179 The 1761
Venus transit report of Hell includes an account of Sambach and his observation, which
regrettably had failed because of clouds. Hell also mentions the observations of a ‘highly
illustrious Mister Müller’ (Perillustris D[ominus] Müller) in the St. Leopold district, as well
as those of an anonymous merchant (Mercator quidam) in a suburb of Vienna.180 It may also
be mentioned that Sambach in 1769 provided Hell with data from a solar eclipse, which
helped him determine the longitude of his observatory in Vardø.181
The Venus transit report of 1761, along with the preserved correspondence of Maximilianus
Hell from the years 1758-61, to some extent disproves the claim that amateur astronomy did
176
Felix Freyherr Ehrmans zum Schlug to Hell in Vienna, dated Wetzlas 8 May 1761 (WUS Vienna, secretary’s
copy).
177
Hell 1761a, pp. 62-67. Von Ehrmans’ modest observatory tower still stands today, and the old castle is
currently used as a hotel (official webpage of the “Ferienschloss Wetzlas”, http://www.ferienschloss.at/,
particularly the “Geschichte” part, accessed 18 January 2011).
178
A prominent noble astronomer in the generation after Hell was Elisabeth von Matt (1762-1814). She built a
private observatory in the centre of Vienna and engaged in many geodetical operations in Austria and Bohemia
in the early 1800s in collaboration with Johann Tobias Bürg, adjunct at the Vienna University Observatory (on
her activities see now Brosche & Ma-Kircher 2010).
179
Steinmayr 2010e, p. 282.
180
Hell 1761a, pp. 20-21.
181
Hell 1770a1, pp. 33 & 41.
- 100 -
not flourish in Austria. On the contrary, Hell at least tried to portray Vienna as a city where
several able amantes astronomiae (‘amateurs of astronomy’) were to be found. Nor did he
resist giving assistance to such amateurs, be they in the capital or in the province, as the
examples of Hatvani, Ehrmans and Sambach demonstrate. It may be true, however, that in
order to embark upon a career as a professional astronomer, you needed to enrol in the Jesuit
or Benedictine systems of education. You would then have to spend years of training in
humanistic disciplines and in spiritual exercises before you might become a student of
mathematics and perhaps even be allowed into an observatory.
On the other hand, it is hard to see that career opportunities were essentially more open at
Protestant universities. In Sweden, a major scientific country in the eighteenth century, the
few professorships that existed in astronomy and related sciences were certainly not offered
exclusively as a result of academic merits and actual skills. Nepotism and politics usually
decided who was offered a post and who was not.182 The same is true of Copenhagen, where –
as we shall see in later sections – the Horrebow clan was able to stay in office for an
incredibly long period. As William Clark demonstrates in his Academic Charisma and the
Origins of the Research University, the ability to manoeuvre in a landscape of nepotism,
political wrangling and downright corruption was probably as good a ‘qualification’ as any in
order to obtain a chair at most early-modern universities in Protestant Germany as well.183
Finally, a remark on the career opportunities for Jesuits on a more international level. The
Jesuit order formed a truly international society. While it is true that the Society of Jesus was
divided into numerous provinciae, which in turn belonged to larger assistentiae, these
divisions by no means produced waterproof barriers, hindering communication and
collaboration. Thus, the ethnically and linguistically diverse Austrian Province formally
belonged to the “German Assistancy”, together with an even more diverse set of provinces,
namely the provinces of England, Flandro- and Gallo-Belgium, Lower and Upper Rhine,
Upper Germany, Bohemia and Poland. In the years 1754-56, Bohemia was split into the
provinces Silesia and Bohemia, and the province of Poland received status as a separate
assistancy consisting of the provinces Greater and Little Poland, Masovia and Lithuania. This
provincial division was maintained until the suppression of the Society in 1773.184 As court
182
See for example Lindroth 1978, passim.
See Clark 2006, espec. pp. 239-296.
184
See Harris 1999, espec. pp. 218-224; cf. Fischer 1978 and 1984.
183
- 101 -
astronomer, Father Hell was to collaborate with Jesuit astronomers in neighbouring provinces,
such as Josephus Stepling SJ (1716-1778), director of the observatory at the Jesuit university
(known as the Clementinum) in Prague and Christianus Mayer SJ (1719-1783), court
astronomer of the Elector in Mannheim and director of the observatory in Schwetzingen. In
his correspondence, he also moved beyond the German Assistancy and contacted his peers in
the Italian and French Assistancies, among them Leonardus Ximenes SJ (or Ximenez, 17161786), director of the observatory in Florence and Esprit Pézenas SJ (1692-1776), director of
the observatory in Marseille. As we have seen, the Rome-based Jesuit Boscovich
contemplated to participate in an expedition to Brazil in 1750, as part of a group that was
supposed to consist of ten Jesuit surveyors. In Austrian Judenburgum, the young Weiss had
plans of becoming a member of the same team. In the end, neither Boscovich nor Weiss went
to Brazil, and both Weiss and Hell were to be employed within the Austrian Province
throughout their careers (with the notable exception of Hell’s expedition in Protestant
Denmark-Norway and Boscovich’s lengthy travels across Europe). However, career
opportunities sometimes offered themselves to aspiring Jesuits who failed to find a chair as an
astronomer in their home province.
A single example must suffice. Christianus Rieger SJ (1714-1780) was born in Vienna and
entered the Jesuit order in 1731. Having taught for a while in Goritia (probably at gymnasium
level), he received his first chair as a professor of architecture at the Theresianum in 1748,
before he switched to experimental physics in the period from 1753 to 1756. Around the time
when Hell and Liesganig were appointed directors of their respective observatories, Rieger
was employed briefly as the praefectus of the Museum Mathematicum in Vienna (1756/57),
probably an extension of his teachings in experimental physics. For the university years 1757
to 1760, however, he is entered in the catalogue of Fischer as a professor matheseos in
Vienna. Whether he was called upon or sought himself to go elsewhere is unclear, but in 1760
he made a giant leap to Madrid, where he taught mechanics, mathematics, physics and
astronomy at the Colegio Imperial until the year 1765.185 After that year, he returned to the
Austrian Province, to become a rector of the Jesuit collegium in Passau (on the German side
of the present border with Austria) and then Labacum (in present-day Slovenia). Finally, after
the suppression of the Society, he resumed his teaching at the Theresianum Vindobonense,
though not anymore in astronomical subjects. In the 1750s and 1760s, Rieger published
185
On Rieger’s period in Madrid, see Udías 2005; Brotóns 2006.
- 102 -
textbooks in architecture in Latin and Spanish, as well as a handful of works on astronomy
and experimental physics, including electricity. In the surviving parts of the correspondence
of Maximilianus Hell, we find three letters exchanged between the two colleagues, all dating
from the spring of 1761, when Rieger was in Madrid.186 Together with Spanish colleagues,
Rieger observed the 1761 transit of Venus, on which he published a report (in Spanish) that
was also summarised in Hell’s Ephemerides.187 It is not clear whether Rieger continued his
activities as an astronomer after his return to the Austrian Province. There were certainly no
empty chairs for astronomers to be found and no expansion of professional astronomy in sight
as far as the Austrian Province was concerned.188
The historian Winfried Müller, in a paper on the Jesuit order in southern Germany and Austria
during the Enlightenment period, characterises the examples of Jesuits of Hell’s generation
who became conspicuous in the sciences, as “isolated phenomena” – or, in the words of his
colleague Peter Hersche, as “white ravens” among the Jesuits.189 However, while it may be
true that the number of persons who gained prominence in the exact sciences in the Habsburg
lands was not high, it remains a fact that the majority of those who did, were members of the
Jesuit order. If we narrow the focus to astronomy alone, the few facilities for professional
astronomical research that were established in the ‘Austrian Province’ prior to 1773, were
mostly put in place by the Jesuit order. The only exceptions were the observatory of the
Benedictine order in Cremifanum and the “public” observatory in Vienna, the latter of which
was initiated by the state but instantly handed over to a Jesuit director. It is not only as Jesuits
the few prominent astronomers of Hell’s generation were “white ravens”.
We leave the Central-European context for a while, to make a giant leap to the expedition of
the years 1768-70 and its sequel, the unfinished Expeditio litteraria ad Polum arcticum.
Although this chapter of his career may be said to have continued until the very year of his
death in 1792, the impact of the suppression of the Society of Jesus in 1773 constitutes such a
turning point that it merits consideration in a separate section.
186
See Unprinted sources, 1a and 1b.
Hell 1761a, pp. 47-49.
188
Information on Rieger, unless stated otherwise, has been taken from Fischer 1978 and Würzbach,
Sechsundzwanzigster Theil (1874).
189
Müller 1993, p. 237: “So bedeutend der wissenshaftliche Rang jesuitischer Gelehrter der Aufklärungsepoche
auch gewesen ist, und ungeachtet der Tatsache, daß sich die Liste prominenter Namen noch erweitern ließe, so
kann, faßt man den Orden als Ganzes ins Auge, nicht verkannt werden, daß es sich eher um Einzelerscheinungen
handelte; Peter Hersche sprach in diesem Zusammenhang einmal etwas maliziös von den ‘weißen Raben’ unter
den Jesuiten”. The series of “prominenter Namen” preceeding the quotation includes the name of Hell.
187
- 103 -
I.2.3 THE GLORIOUSLY INFAMOUS EXPLORER, 1768-1773
In September 1767, Maximilianus Hell was invited to make an expedition to Vardøhus, the
site of a fortress and a small garrison in the remote northeastern corner of the DanishNorwegian realm. In April 1768 he set forth, along with his assistant Sajnovics, the servant
Sebastianus Kohl and a dog – not to speak of a massive array of scientific equipment that was
to be substantially supplemented in Copenhagen, Christiania (Oslo) and Trondheim as the
group progressed northwards. The resources offered Hell for his expedition indicate how
much prestige was invested in the project: he was given the best wagons and ships available;
he got all the personell and material he needed to construct his observatory in Vardø; he was
provided with his own cook and supplies enough for a whole year for his period north of
Trondheim; and he got the natural historian Jens Finne Borchgrevink (1736-1819) attached to
the expedition as a scientific assistant, translator and ‘tour guide’ in northernmost Norway.190
A hibernation in Vardø, 1768/69, was followed by another long rest in Copenhagen, 1769/70.
Not until August 1770 did the group return to Vienna. In the meantime, Hell and Sajnovics
had successfully observed the transit of Venus from Vardøhus and been elected full members
of the Royal Societies of Sciences in both Copenhagen and Trondheim. They had interacted
with leading characters in Danish-Norwegian civil, ecclesiastical and military administration
alike, and with professionals as well as amateurs of science. All travel costs had been covered
by the King’s treasury and several scientific treatises pertaining to the expedition had been
published by the Royal Society of Sciences in Copenhagen.
Analysis of the various activities of the two Jesuits on Danish-Norwegian soil and their
political, scientific and social-historical implications is beyond the scope of this essay. In
subsequent chapters, we shall have occasion to look into the details of Nordic participation in
the international quest to establish the size of the solar system and the political implications of
that enterprise. In the meanwhile, however, the raison d’être of the journey will be kept out of
the picture as the focus stays fixed on the various scientific activities of the two Jesuit Fathers
that reached beyond the core field of astronomy. I shall limit myself to a brief summary of the
invitation, of the travel route and of the main scientific activities as exposited in Hell’s call for
subscriptions for a three-volume Expeditio litteraria ad Polum arcticum. Particular attention
will be given to the discovery of the Hungarian language’s affinity with “Lappish” (Sámi) and
190
See for example Kragemo 1960; Voje Johansen 2004; Aspaas 2008c.
- 104 -
to Hell’s role in this context, whilst the other branches of their research will be treated in less
detail.
It may seem odd that the court in Copenhagen, a comparatively minor power in the north,
should cast its eyes on Vienna in search of an astronomer of international reputation to
observe the transit of Venus. In the lack of sources specifying the reasons behind the choice,
we can only conjecture why. From a strictly internalist, scientific point of view, his candidacy
is not that strange: as the Venus transit of 1769 drew closer, Maximilianus Hell had already
become a well known figure in European astronomy. What is more, he had established
himself as an expert on the transits of Venus, who had even dared debate with the best
astronomers of France (see Section II.1.4). Other Habsburg candidates might have been just
as capable of doing the job, witness the skills of a Weiss, a Liesganig, a Scherffer, a
Fixlmillner… However, as I hope to have demonstrated by now, Maximilianus Hell had an
official status that set him apart from his peers: as court astronomer and editor of the official
almanac, he was clearly the most internationally profiled representative of Austrian
astronomy. His adherence to the Jesuit order might have been seen as a hindrance, but at the
eve of the dissolution of the order the anti-Jesuit sentiment was generally a far more live issue
in Catholic than in Protestant countries. While it may be true that the Letter of the Law
forbade the presence of Jesuits in the Danish realm, this was seen by many in the
cosmopolitan elite as a remnant from past centuries rather than a bulwark against any
imminent threat. The reformation had come out victorious ages ago in Scandinavia, and
although various measures were still in place to prevent Catholicism to take root,191 the
Viennese Jesuit was in any case going to stay in the realm for a limited period only. The
prestige involved in the international quest to determine the size of the solar system obviously
mattered more than religious concerns. Economy may have been an issue as well; after all,
monks were known to subsist on modest means.
Nils Voje Johansen at the University of Oslo, who has collected archival sources on
Maximilian Hell’s expedition for many years, has been able to verify that the decision to
contact Hell was taken in the foreign ministry on 18 August 1767, with the first meeting
191
For an analysis of the religious aspect of Danish-Norwegian state politics in the early-modern period, see
Sogner 2003 (in Norwegian; also summarised in English in Grete Brochmann & Knut Kjeldstadli, A History of
Immigration: The Case of Norway 900-2000, Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 2008).
- 105 -
between Hell and the Danish ambassador taking place in Vienna on 5 September. 192 In the
subsequent correspondence between ambassador Johann Friedrich Bachoff von Echt (17101781) and the Danish foreign minister Johan Hartvig Ernst Bernstorff (1712-1772, minister
1751-1770), the ambassador stresses the point that “just as little as any religious person is
mindful to acquire riches for himself, neither will Father Hell demand any payment, except
coverage of all the costs of the voyage itself”. Furthermore, “as far as the costs of the voyage
are concerned,” the ambassador had reason to believe that, “considering the frugality in which
the Jesuits are accustomed to live” no huge expenses would be incurred.193 With backing from
the government in Copenhagen, Bachoff then took direct contact with the mighty Viennese
state chancellor Wenzel Anton von Kaunitz (1711-1794, chancellor from 1753), whose
position covered the office of a foreign minister in modern terms.194 The purpose was to
obtain for Hell a temporary leave from his post as court astronomer. In other words, the
invitation was a question of diplomacy on the highest level. But Father Hell was not only a
servant of the court in Vienna. He also needed to obtain permission from the Society of Jesus.
By 10 December 1767, three months after the first meeting between Hell and the ambassador,
permission from both the General of Jesuit order in Rome and from Prince Kaunitz had been
secured.195 Regrettably, the correspondence between Hell and the Jesuit General, apart from
the drafts for a couple of letters written in Vardø, has not been found. On the whole, the
number of letters from Hell’s correspondence that have been available for the present study
dating from the period 1763 to 1767 is very limited.196
192
Tyske Cancelli, kopibogen, entry under 18 August 1767 (RA Copenhagen): “Wird ihm [i.e. Bachoff]
aufgetragen, den Pater Hell unter der Hand sondieren zu lassen, ob und unter welchen Bedingungen, derselbe auf
Königl. Kosten, in Wardehuus den Durchgang der Venus durch die Sonne zu beobachten geneigt sey” =
“[Bachoff, the Danish ambassador in Vienna] will be ordered to make confidential, preliminary talks with Father
Hell to see if, and under what conditions, he could be willing, on His Majesty’s costs, to observe the transit of
Venus in front of the Sun from Vardøhus”; Tyske Cancelli, Udenrigske Afdeling, Kejseren, Gesandtskabsrelationer 1767, letter from Bachoff to Bernstorff in Copenhagen, dated Vienna 7 September 1767 (RA
Copenhagen): “j’ai parlé avant hier en personne au Pere Hell, qui n’a point fait difficulté de se rendre chez moi”
= “I talked the day before yesterday to Father Hell, who made no difficulty whatsoever about visiting me”.
Further comments on the invitation of Hell is made in letter from Bachoff to Bernstorff, dated Vienna 3
September, 29 October and 10 December 1767 (RA Copenhagen). I am indebted to Voje Johansen for
generously sharing this and other archival documents with me.
193
Bachoff to Bernstorff (RA Copenhagen), dated Vienna 7 September 1767: “Jl me reste d’ajouter, que comme
aussi bien nul religieux ne scauroit acquerir pour soi, le Pere Hell ne demande aucune recompense, sauf l’affranchissement des fraix du voyage” and Vienna 10 December 1767: “Quant aux fraix de voyage, j’ai lieu de croire
qu’attendu la frugalité dont les Jesuites ont coutume de vivre, [etc.]”. I am indebted to my colleague Magnhild
Svenheim for helping me decipher certain difficult passages in the ambassador’s correspondence.
194
Bachoff to Bernstorff (RA Copenhagen), dated Vienna 10 December 1767.
195
Ibid.
196
See Unprinted Sources, 1a and 1b. A visit to the Archivum Historicum Societatis Iesu in Rome in October
2005 yielded no results.
- 106 -
The Nordic context of Hell’s invitation will be reserved for further analysis in Chapter II.2.
Returning to the Imperial Astronomer himself, one may ask what made him accept the
invitation. The few autograph sources that are extant all originate from a later date. However,
if we trust his own words in an unfinished introductory chapter to the Expeditio litteraria,
edited in Chapter III.3 below, the invitation from Denmark-Norway came as a total surprise.
Not only had he – allegedly – cultivated no scientific correspondence with anyone in
Copenhagen, he would in any case have thought that his adherence to the Society of Jesus
excluded him from invitation to a Protestant country of the North, “and especially in a time
when the Society went through the heaviest of persecutions in Catholic countries”.197 The
invitation presented by the Danish ambassador could be nothing other than the work of divine
providence, he concluded. Thus, placing his fate in the hands of God, Father Hell expressed
willingness to go to Vardø already during his first ever meeting with the ambassador of
Denmark.
The Viennese Jesuit may have had several reasons for accepting the invitation, besides an
instinctive inclination to ‘place his fate in the hands of God’. First, there was the religious
issue. The main reason why the Counter-Reformation was no longer a live issue in
Scandinavia, was the restriction that the Nordic countries laid on Catholics, especially Jesuits,
who normally were not allowed to enter these parts at all.198 With an invitation in the name of
the Danish King himself, this was a rare opportunity not only for Father Hell, but so also for
his entire Order, to visit Scandinavia. Another likely reason is that, to the ContinentalEuropean Republic of Letters, the region in question was virtually a terra incognita. The
Lapland expeditions of Carolus Linnaeus (Carl von Linné, 1707-1778) and Pierre Louis
Moreau de Maupertuis (1698-1759) in the 1730s were already classical, but there still
remained many scientific puzzles to be solved. In this situation, scientific publications as well
as travellers’ reports from Arctic Europe were held in high esteem.199 A third aspect is the
197
See below, Chapter III.3.
Apart from Sogner 2003, Scandinavian-language contributions on this aspect of Hell’s expedition include
Duin 1984 (orig. published 1978) and Holzapfel 1979 and in part Kragemo 1960 and Kragemo 1968.
199
On the reception of voyages in northernmost Europe by French, Italian and British natural philosophers in the
seventeenh century, see for example Ruiu 2007 or Grillo in press; on the status of Lapland as a terra incognita in
the first half of the eighteenth century, see Wagner 2004, espec. pp. 22-30; for the Swedish/Finnish relationship
with the Académie des Sciences in particular, see Pihlaja 2005 and 2009. That this region remained exotic and
mystical to savants on the Continent also in the second half of the eighteenth century is evident from Widmalm’s
discussion of the situation around 1800, see Widmalm 1990, espec. pp. 183-185. As regards the exotism
surrounding the expedition of Hell, an article in Nordske Jntelligenz-Sedler No. 1, Onsdagen den 3. Januari 1770
is illuminating; see also Lalande 1803, p. 721: “Dans ces regions boréales, si peu fréquentées et si peu connues,
198
- 107 -
‘purely scientific’: as an expert on the transits of Venus, Hell no doubt knew of the
advantages offered by the high-northern latitude of Vardø. This aspect will be highlighted in
parts II and III of this thesis.
The expedition was originally envisaged to last no longer than a few months. The Viennese
astronomer could reach Vardø in the spring of 1769 and return to the Habsburg capital before
the end of the same year, ambassador Bachoff suggested. However, it soon became clear that
Maximilianus Hell had more ambitious plans. In March 1768, just weeks before he set out
from Vienna, he sent the following letter to the Pope:200
Most humble prayers to His Holiness Pope Clement XIII for obtaining
permission for dispensations because of a journey to be undertaken through nonCatholic lands upon call from the King of Denmark.
Since upon invitation from His most Serene King of Denmark,
communicated through His Ambassador to the Imperial Court in Vienna Count
von Bachoff, and upon permissions from Her Highness the Empress Maria
Theresa and from the General of the Society of Jesus His most Reverend Father
Laurentius Ricci, a long journey is to be undertaken, funded by the King of
Denmark, beginning this spring and lasting for several years, going through
Saxony, Brandenburg, Denmark and Sweden to the farthest island of Norway by
the Arctic Sea, called Vardøhus, a place where I will have to stay for rather a
tout est intéressant, et le P. Hell avait tout étudié […]” = “In these northern regions, so rarely visited and so little
explored, eveything is of interest, and Father Hell studied everything”.
200
Hell to Pope Clement XIII, dated Vienna 5 March 1768 (Vatican See, Archivio Segreto Vaticano, “Archivio
della Nunziatura Apostolica in Vienna”, vol. 136, fol. 45recto [secretary’s copy]): “Preces humillimae 5ta Martii
Romam missae 1768 // Ad sanctissimum Papam Clementem XIII. pro impetrandis dispensationibus, et
facultatibus causa itineris per Regiones Acatholicorum ad evocationem Regis Daniæ faciend[i]. // Cum ad
serenissimi Regis Daniae per suum ad Aulam Caesaream Viennensem Legatum Comitem de Bachoff factam
evocationem, et obtentam ab Augustissima Jmperatrice Maria Theresia, atque a Praeposito Generali Societatis
Jesu Adm. R. Patre Laurentio Ricci licentiam sumptibus Regis daniae grande, et per aliquot annos duraturum iter
proximo Vere mihi cum Socio Sacerdote é mea Societate, atque famulo Catholico incohandum sit per Saxoniam,
Brandeburgum, Daniam, Sueciam, ad supremam usque Norwegiae Jnsulam in Mari glaciali sitam, Wardhus
dictam, ibique per longius tempus causa observationum Astronomicarum a Rege Daniae mihi imperatarum
commorandum sit, iterumque peragrata tota Suecia, et Dania, fortassis per Hollandiam, Belgiam, Angliam,
Gallias, et totum Jmperium redeundum erit Viennam; hocque iter, hęcque mea cum socio meo commoratio in
Regionibus hujusmodi Acatholicorum futura sit, in quibus neque Templa publica neque Sacella Catholicorum
habentur, neque ullum Catholicae Religionis exercitium toleretur, et pręterea veste Religiosa in secularem
mutata, nos in publico ita gerere oporteat, ut non modo non sacerdotes, sed subinde in certis Circumstantijs
neque Catholicos suspicari debeant; His de causis ad evitanda mala, ad solatium spirituale, ad sedandos
scrupulous conscientiae, infra scripti supplices sumus sanctissimo Pontifici pro clementissime indulgendis
sequentibus mihi, meoque socio, et famulo summe necessarijs dispensationibus, et facultatibus. // Primo:
quamdiu inter acatholicos sub veste sęculari, aut vero, quamdiu in ipso itinere etiam inter Catholicos versabimur,
propter nimios labores diurnos nocturnosque tum propter itinerum gravia incommoda, tum ne per iter inter
Acatholicos, sacerdotes esse noscant, humillime supplicamus pro absolvenda obligatione recitandi Breviarij. //
Secundo: demissime supplicamus pro facultate sacrum faciendi in sacellis domesticis Legatorum Catholicorum,
ubi has repererimus, item pro facultate Missam celebrandi supra portatili nobiscum occulte ferendi, in Cubiculis
privatis, aut sub tentorijs saltem diebus festis, et dominicis. // Tertio: Pro casu necessitatis, dum alio inter
Acatholicos versantes esum carnium diebus ab Ecclesia prohibitis evitare non poterimus, dispensationem,
facultatemque cibis carnium vescendi humillime petimus. // P. Maximilianus Hell S.J. Astronomus CaesareoRegius, cum socio sacerdote ex eadem Societate Jesu, et famulo Catholico.”
- 108 -
long time because of astronomical observations that I have been ordered by the
King of Denmark to undertake, followed by a return journey to Vienna, going
through entire Sweden and Denmark and then perhaps through Holland,
Belgium, England, France and the entire [Holy Roman] Empire, and since this
journey and sojourn will befall me and my assistant in non-Catholic lands of
this kind, in which neither official churches nor other places of Catholic worship
are found and no worship of the Catholic religion is tolerated, and where our
religious dress will need to be exchanged for secular clothing and we on the
whole will have to behave in public in such a way that we not only avoid
incurring the suspicion of being priests, but on certain occasions even must
avoid being recognised as Catholics, we hereby beg, on behalf of myself, my
assistant and my servant, in order to avoid danger, receive spiritual solace and
sedate scruples, to be bestowed by His Most Holy Pontiff the most gracious
permission for the utterly necessary dispensations that are stated below.
First, for as long as we stay among non-Catholics, and even when
travelling amongst Catholics, because of the strenuous labours both day and
night as well as the incommodities caused by the conditions of travelling, and
not least in order to avoid being recognised as priests while amongst nonCatholics, we beg most humbly to be freed from the obligation of reciting the
Breviary.
Second, we beg most humbly to be allowed to minister at domestic altars
of Catholic ambassadors, whenever we find such persons, and to be allowed to
celebrate mass upon a portable table which we will bring with us in secret,
either in private rooms or at least in tents, during holidays and Sundays.
Third, in the event of necessity, for as long as we stay in non-Catholic
lands we beg most humbly to be allowed to eat meat even on days prohibited by
the Church when this cannot be avoided.
In other words, the Jesuit Priest prepared himself for an existence as a ‘crypto-Catholic’. It is
also noteworthy how vaguely he describes the duration and expanse of his expedition: “for
several years” (per aliquot annos) and “perhaps through Holland, Belgium, England, France
and the entire [Holy Roman] Empire”. Answer from the Holy See reached Father Hell in
Danish-ruled Traventhal (not far from Lübeck) on 31 May 1768. The answer as such is not
known to have survived. However, Hell’s assistant noted the following sarcasm in the travel
diary:201
Herr Temler delivered to us letters, which he had brought with him from Vienna
to Denmark, from Denmark to Holstein, and then hither [to Traventhal]. One
201
Sajnovics’ diary, proofread version (WUS Vienna), entry on 31 May 1768: “D[omi]nus Temler litteras
reddidit, Vienna Haffniam, Haffnia in Holsatiam, inde huc a se allatas. quarum aliæ erant à P. Anto: Pilgram,
aliæ ex Aula Romana, quibus Facultatem Sanctissimus Noster Clemens XIII impertitur sacrum in portatili
Celebrandi, modo in Cubili nemo noctu dormiat. Dispensatio ab Horis Cannonicis, et Abstinentia a carnibus
emansit, sine dubio ob malam informationem Pontifici datam. qui si Circumstantias itineris, Viarumque, et
Victus rationem, atque fatigiorum magnitudinem vidisset persæpe, non commiseratione solum, sed etiam horrore
perfusus, ampliores etiam Dispensationes ultro certe obtulisset. sed nempe Procursionem hanc Recreandi sese et
exhilarandi causa Susceptam, et inter amoenos Jtaliæ hortos terminandam autumabat, ita referentibus ijs, quibus
referendi negotium erat comissum…” (The “…” are from the original).
- 109 -
letter was from Father Antonius Pilgram, another from the Roman court. Our
Holiness Clement XIII bestowed upon us the right to minister at a portable
table, provided that no one sleeps in the room at night. Dispensation from
canonical hours and abstinence from meat was not granted, no doubt because
the Pontiff was not well informed. If he [i.e., the Pope] had perceived the
circumstances of the journey, the nature of the roads, the way of life and the
sheer amount of fatigue involved, he would definitely have been affected often
enough not only by compassion, but even horror, and on his own initiate granted
even more dispensations than those he had been asked for. However, he
obviously thought this excursion of ours was undertaken as any other holiday
for pleasure’s sake, with the aim of reaching the idyllic Italian gardens, having
been told so by those whose job it was to inform him about the application.
It is easy to agree with Sajnovics’ comment that neither the destination nor the travel route
resembled “the idyllic Italian gardens”. The two Jesuits had rolled out of Vienna on 28 April
1768, more than a year ahead of the transit of Venus. The trip overland took them through
Prague, Dresden, Leipzig, Hamburg and Lübeck. In Traventhal they had an audience with
King Christian VII, whom they describe in favourable terms. From the port in Travemünde
outside Lübeck, Hell and Sajnovics proceeded by ship to Copenhagen, where they stayed for
three weeks. From there, they set forth via Helsingør and Helsingborg along the coast of
southwestern Sweden to Fredrikshald (now Halden) and Christiania (Oslo). They thereafter
travelled on the far from comfortable cart roads across the mountains of southern Norway to
Trondheim, where they had another three-week rest. From Trondheim, the northernmost town
of Norway at the time, they proceeded by ship along the coast to their final destination of
Vardø, which they reached in the midst of a storm on 11 October 1768.202 An eyewitness
from Skjervøy in northern Norway characterised the very idea of travelling to Vardø by boat
at that time of year as “a desperate voyage by desperate persons”.203
Hell and Sajnovics stayed in Vardø from 11 October 1768 to 27 June 1769. Their return
journey from Vardø to Copenhagen was more or less identical, with the notable exception that
it took place in the summer.204 They now stayed in Copenhagen for more than seven months,
from 17 October 1769 to 22 May 1770. They also took a slightly different route back to
Vienna from Copenhagen, passing through Fyn, southern Jutland, Schleswig and Holstein to
202
Sajnovics, travel diary 1768-1770 (WUS Vienna).
Pastor Cornelius Duns in Skjervøy to bishop Johann Ernst Gunnerus in Trondheim, dated 13 September 1768
(quoted from Dahl vol. IV, 1899, p. 109): “Pat. Hell er i Moursund med de andre, vil paa denne aarets tiid til
Wardøe, Een desperat reise af desperate Personer!” = “Father Hell is in Maursund with the rest of the company,
he intends to go to Vardø in this time of year: a desperate voyage by desperate persons!”
204
For a map of the northbound journey, see Hadobás 2008, p. 115. The southbound part of the journey from
Vardø to Copenhagen is depicted in Hansen & Aspaas 2005, p. 36 (both publications available online as of 17
February 2011).
203
- 110 -
Hamburg. From Hamburg, they again chose a more westerly route, this time visiting
Göttingen and Kassel before turning straight westward to Düsseldorf and then south through
Cologne to Mannheim and Schwetzingen, before they turned east via Würzburg, Ingolstadt
and Passau to reach Lincium, Cremifanum, Graecium and finally Vienna. A wish to visit as
many observatories and other research institutions as possible appears to have been one
reason behind this winding track; to visit the residences of Jesuit missionaries, another.
Not until 12 August 1770 were Hell and Sajnovics back in the Austrian capital. The court
astronomer had now been absent from his post for two years and three and a half months.
During this time, he had visited areas where the religious controversies were far more acute
and the balance of strength between the various denominations less clearly marked than in
Maria Theresa’s Vienna. Although the travel diary of Hell’s assistant is crammed with details
of ecclesiastical persons and buildings, with Jesuit missionaries and professors invariably
described as nostri (‘ours’), there is also ample information on scientific activities in his diary
and other documents preserved from the expedition. Individual savants and the few institution
for learning that were in place are generally described with enthusiasm. Within Copenhagenruled territory, there were only two universities, one in Kiel (not visited by Hell) and one in
Copenhagen. Far more important to Hell and his assistant, however, were the scientific
societies in Copenhagen (established 1742) and Trondheim (established 1760, Royal Society
from 1767).205 Interaction with numerous persons either closely or loosely related to these
institutions was of fundamental importance to Father Hell in his pursuit of the broad scientific
ambitions for the expedition. This brings us to the planned publication of a three-volume work
in folio, covering the history of the expedition as such as well as the various branches of
research undertaken in its course.
Encyclopædic ambitions of scientific travel were typical of the eighteenth century. In the
context of the transits of Venus, one may point to the much-quoted reports from Captain
Cook’s first circumnavigation of the globe in conjunction with the 1769 transit. Equally
encyclopædic in nature are the two-volume travel diary by Chappe d’Auteroche from his
Siberian expedition in 1761 and the extensive travel diaries of Jacques-André Mallet and
205
For an English account of the Royal Society of Sciences in Copenhagen see Pedersen 1992. On the history of
the Trondheim Society of Sciences, see now Andersen et al. 2009.
- 111 -
Jean-Louis Pictet from their expedition to the Kola Peninsula in 1769.206 The Parisian
astronomer Cassini de Thury, who paid a visit to Hell in Vienna in 1761, put it thus in a paper
on the Venus transits in the proceedings of the Académie Royale des Sciences:207
When such long voyages are undertaken, one must have more than one object,
so that in case the essential goal cannot be accomplished, it will be possible in
some measure to remedy the damage. Otherwise, one may be forced to take
comfort in having travelled more than a thousand leagues only to gaze at the
Sun for six hours and find it eclipsed, not by the planet, but by a cloud.
Similar expressions are found in a letter from Scherffer to Weiss, dated 2 August 1750. There,
Scherffer offers Weiss advice concerning the aims and scope of a planned expedition to
survey the Portuguese dominions in Brazil. Scherffer emphasises that his colleague should
prepare to undertake not only geodetic work, but also to make delicate barometrical
observations, investigate the running of pendulum clocks, undertake numerous geophysical
observations, and so on – in short, “to describe the Brazilian lands” in all their diversity:208
I confess that, if merely one of these aspects are left out [scil. of the expedition’s
research programme], there will be no one in Europe who will explain that
defect by pointing to the expedition’s mandate, the hardships endured, the wants
of the instrumentation, the limited staff or the [King’s] parsimony in the
expenses: surely, every person will blame it on the ignorance of Jesuits abusing
the treasuries of Kings.
In other words, as Scherffer saw it, making sure to have a broad expedition programme was
especially important when Jesuits were concerned, in order to ward off attacks from antiJesuit intellectuals abroad. Judging from the correspondence of Hell from the period 1768-70,
which is to a large extent intact, the idea of making a grand encyclopædic work on the High
North was present in Hell’s mind from the outset of his journey. The first reference to the title
as such is in a letter to his substitute in Vienna, Antonius Pilgram, dated Vardø 30 April 1769:
206
See the editions of Michel Mervaud & Madeleine Pinault Sørensen (Chappe 2004) and Jean-Daniel Candaux
et al. (Mallet & Pictet 2005).
207
Cassini de Thury, “Remarques sur la conjonction de Vénus avec le Soleil, Qui doit arriver le 6 Juin de l’année
prochaine 1761.” 1762 (paper read 12 November 1760), p. 334: “Lorsqu’on entreprend d’aussi longs voyages, il
faut avoir plus d’un objet, pour que si l’essentiel ne peut être rempli, on puisse en être dédommagé en quelque
manière; autrement pourroit-on se consoler d’avoir fait plus de mille lieues pour voir le Soleil pendant six heures
& de le trouver éclipsé, non par la planète, mais par un nuage.”
208
Scherffer to Weiss, dated [Graecium] 2 August 1750 (printed in Vargha 1990, pp. 10-11, here p. 11):
“Quantae molis erit Brasilas describere terras? Fateor, si horum aliquid desideraretur, vix aliquem fore in
Europa, qui defectum seu in operis ordinitatem [Vargha; anne ordinationem scribendum Kraggerud], seu in
temporum angustias [scripsi; augustias Vargha], seu in instrumentorum defectum, seu in Sociorum paucitatem,
seu in sumptuum parsimoniam referret: quin omnes vel ignorantiam Regia liberalitate abutentium Jesuitorum
accusarent.” The classical scholar will notice the hexameter at the beginning of the quotation, probably an
allusion to Vergil’s Aeneid I.33: “Tantae molis erat Romanam condere gentem”.
- 112 -
“my observations, which I have either made or am going to make here in Vardø, will be
reserved for the Expeditio litteraria ad Polum Arcticum”.209 In the subsequently published
report on the Venus transit, he outlined the main contents of the work, although he there refers
to it as the Expeditio litteraria only.210 A more elaborate description of the work (this time
with its full title) was issued later in year 1770, in the form of a call for subscriptions that was
included in the journal Nova Acta Eruditorum and also issued as a separate leaflet in both
Latin and German. The entire call for subscriptions is edited in Chapter III.2 below. For now,
we shall look briefly into its various parts and their contexts. First, however, a brief discussion
of the title of the work appears necessary.
It is tempting to translate the title Expeditio litteraria ad Polum arcticum as ‘Literary
Expedition to the North Pole’, as has been done for example by George Sarton and Helge
Kragemo.211 However, upon close inspection it turns out that the only word that is
unproblematic in that translation is Expeditio. This simply represents ‘expedition’, in the
modern sense of the word. The adjective litterarius in its early modern version means
something else than belles-lettres, or literature. It here conveys the same sense as the
Respublica litteraria (République des Lettres, Republic of Letters, Gelehrtenrepublik). The
nearest modern equivalent would be ‘scientific’, allowing for a broad sense of the concept that
would encompass both book-based erudition and empirical natural sciences, as in the German
expression “Wissenschaften”.
A couple of contemporary examples might help corroborate this interpretation of litterarius.
The astronomer Nevil Maskelyne, in a letter to the President of the Royal Society of London
sums up the historical significance of British participation in the 1761 Venus transit project in
the following manner (the italics are mine):212
Nor can the learned world but look upon themselves as highly indebted to your
Lordship, for that noble zeal, which you have manifested for the improvement
of astronomy, in setting forward, and promoting, these literary expeditions,
which tend to the benefit of mankind, and the honour of our native country.
209
Printed in Pinzger 1927, pp. 93-95, here p. 94: “meas [scil. observationes] hic loci factas faciendasque
Expeditioni Litterariae ad Polum Arcticum reservo”.
210
Hell 1770a1, pp. 2-6, 17, 61, etc.
211
Sarton 1944, p. 104; Kragemo 1960, p. 122.
212
Maskelyne “An Account of the Observations made on the Transit of Venus, June 6, 1761, in the Island of St.
Helena: In a Letter to […] George Earl of Macclesfield, President of the Royal Society, from the Rev. Nevil
Maskelyne […]. Read Nov. 5, 1761” 1762, p. 200.
- 113 -
There was nothing belletristic about the expeditions referred to in that statement; Maskelyne
obviously implies ‘scientific’. Lalande, in one of his letters to Father Weiss, asks him to
address his letters to the Académie Royale des Sciences, so that that institution will cover the
postage. This will be quite legitimate, he proceeds, for what they were dealing with was
“above all observations and literary correspondence (correspondance litteraire)”, that is
subjects worthy of being paid for by the academy.213 Again, ‘scientific’ is what is meant.
Finally, when Hell’s planned work was referred to in contemporaneous translations into
Danish, the title was regularly rendered “det lærde Tog”.214 The epithet “lærd” is associated
with the noun “Videnskab” (or “Wissenschaft”), implying both erudition and empirical
science, but not belles-lettres.215
The next part, ad Polum arcticum, could easily be interpreted as ‘towards’ – not ‘to’ – ‘the
North Pole’. The preposition ad, when connected with verbs or nouns implying movement,
usually means a movement towards a destination. This stands in contrast to in with the
accusative, which implies that the destination is reached. However, another frequent meaning
of ad is ‘by, near, in the vicinity of’ a place or area. Are we then dealing with a scientific
expedition towards the North Pole, or by the North Pole? The call for subscriptions was
translated in its entirety into German. We there find “Reisebeschreibung nach dem Nordpol”
(my emphasis).216 This would seem to suggest that Sarton’s translation is correct: Hell was
considered have travelled “to” (or at least, “towards”) the Polus arcticus. In that case, “North
213
Lalande to Weiss in Tyrnavia, dated Paris 7 August 1768 (quoted from Vargha 1990, p. 68): “cela est juste
quand il s’agit surtout d’observations et de correspondance litteraire” (my emphasis).
214
E.g. Hell 1770a3, pp. 538-539; Sajnovics 1770a2, p. 737. See also Pars I Tomi I Caput IV in Chapter III.3
below, where “Expeditionis hujus litterariæ” has become “dieser gelehrten Reise” in the German version.
215
It might be mentioned that a likely model for Hell’s work is the De Litteraria Expeditione per Pontificiam
Ditionem ad dimetiendos duos meridiani gradus et corrigendam mappam geographicam, written by the two
Jesuits Christopher Maire and Roger Joseph Boscovich and published in 1755. As Boscovich explains in the
preface, it consists of five parts. 1) a historical and physical account of the two Jesuits’ expeditio litteraria
through the Papal States, written by Boscovich himself; 2) a determination of one degree of meridian on the
basis of observations made by the two Jesuits, written by Maire; 3) a correction of the geographical map of the
Papal States, by Maire; 4) descriptions of the instruments used during the expedition, by Boscovich; and 5) a
discussion of the shape of the Earth on the basis of [Newton’s theory of] gravity and the measurement of
degrees, by Boscovich: “Primum Opusculum a me conscriptum continet Commentarium Historicum, ac Pysicum
expeditionis litterariæ per ditionem Pontificiam. // Secundum conscriptum a P. Maire continet determinationem
gradus meridiani ex communibus observationibus definiti ipsius labore, & calculis. // Tertium, ipsius itidem, agit
de correctione Mappæ Geographicæ, quam ex communibus pariter observationibus restitutam summo labore, ac
diligentia delineavit. // Quartum, quod est meum, agit de apparatu, & usu instrumentorum in eadem expeditione
adhibitorum. // Quintum itidem meum de Telluris figura determinanda ex æquilibrio, & ex graduum mensura”
(Maire & Boscovich 1755, pp. xiv-xix, here p. xiv). In 1770, this classic of geodesy appeared in a French
edition, bearing the title Voyage Astronomique et Géographique, dans l’Etat de l’Eglise (Maire & Boscovich
1770). Litterarius had now become “astronomical and geographical”.
216
Hell 1771a2, p. [1].
- 114 -
Pole” must designate something else than it does today, possibly just ‘the region of the High
North; the Arctic’.217 However, I shall argue that the translation ‘by’ is probably better.
The phrase ad Polum arcticum is used several times in the introductory chapter of the
Expeditio litteraria, edited below. It is hard to draw any definite conclusions from those
examples, however.218 The main piece of evidence in favour of ‘by’, instead of ‘towards the
North Pole’, is a manuscript covering magnetic observations made during the southbound part
of the journey, that is, from Vardø towards Copenhagen. This manuscript bears the title ‘The
method used for observing the magnetic needle’s declinations during the iter litterarium ad
Polum boreum’.219 Iter, journey, is here a synonym for expeditio; boreus for arcticus. Given
the southbound travel route described in this manuscript, ad is clearly meant on this occasion
to imply ‘by the North Pole’, not ‘towards’.
In conclusion to this discussion of the title, I suggest that the sense of the expression Expeditio
litteraria ad Polum arcticum is probably best conveyed to modern readers by the translation
‘Scientific Expedition by the North Pole’.
The first volume of the Expeditio litteraria was meant to start with an account on how the
expedition came about and the international context in which it was inscribed. Hell’s
introductory chapter, which has remained unpublished until now, is edited in Chapter III.3
below. As for the rest of volume one, it would certainly have relied heavily on contributions
from Hell’s assistant, Sajnovics. Its contents may be summarised thus:
Volume I. Historicus
Part I: The history of the expedition, including a diary of the entire journey;
Part II: An ethnographical descripton of the Lapps; Part III: On the “Lappish
217
Such a translation is given by the editors in Hviid 2005, p. 589 endote 368: “En litterær ekspedisjon til de
nordlige polaregne”. In that interpretation, Polus arcticus would be a synonym for Zona frigida arctica (used by
Hell in the call for subscriptions, Tomi II. Pars IV. Sectio I in Chapter III.2 below).
218
To quote just four examples (all taken from Chapter III.3 below, some words italicised for this occasion): 1)
“Non minore Zelo, et conatu celeberrimi Sueciæ Astronomi Jllustrium Academiarum Stokholmiensis et
Upsalensis præclara Academiæ Petropolitanæ studia æmulati ternas ad septentrionem totius Transitus
peroportunas observandi stationes fixerunt ”; 2) “Expeditio hæc Anglorum ad Polum arcticum in Finnmarchiam
facta est ipso observationis anno 1769 Mense Aprili, quum ego jam à die 11 octobris 1768 cum socio meo P.
Sajnovics in Jnsula Finnmarchiæ, Wardœhus dicta, versarer”; 3) “Dania ergo erat, cujus solius Dispositioni
Divina Providentia inter decem ad Polum arcticum stationes, quam maxime completam dare decreverat
observationem hujus Transitus Veneris, sola et una maris glacialis Jnsula, solum nempe Wardœhusium ea erat in
extremo septentrione statio, quam [etc.]”; 4) “Consilio inito Expeditionem quoque litterariam ad Polum arcticum
in Jnsulam Wardœhus Regi Clementissimo proponendam, impetrandamque decrevêre [scil. Ministri Danici]”.
219
Hell’s MS “Methodus observandi Declinationes acus magneticæ per iter litterarium ad Polum boreum” (17691770).
- 115 -
Language”, on its unity with the Hungarian language, and on the “Asian
Language” in general.
The author of the “diary of the entire journey”, Joannes Nepomucenus Sajnovics SJ220
(1733-1785) had grown up in the village Tordas in the Alba Regalis221 region, just southwest
of present-day Budapest. His family was of Croat origin, but had in the seventeenth century
settled in Alba Regalis, where it became magyarised. With reference to the vernacular,
Joannes Sajnovics explains that he had been “born and raised in Hungary by Hungarian
parents”, thereby implying that his mother tongue was Hungarian.222 Already at the age of 15,
in 1748, he entered the Society of Jesus. He had by then lost both his parents. As he entered
the Society, Joannes relinquished the Sajnovics estate to his older brother Matthias as sole
heir. He received his undergraduate schooling in Jaurinum and Buda and stayed in
Trenchinium as a novice, before moving to Tyrnavia to study at the philosophical faculty in
1751. One of his university teachers was Georgius Pray SJ (1723-1801), who was later to
become a leading historian in Hungary. Franciscus Weiss probably taught him as well.
Sajnovics himself taught in Posonium in the mid 1750s before moving to the University of
Vienna, where he studied theology and served as Hell’s assistant (bidellus) in 1758/59 and
1759/60. One of his tasks appears to have been to serve as the secretary of the Imperial
Astronomer. Comparison with the handwriting of the travel diary from 1768-70 has
convinced me that all extant transcripts of Hell’s correspondence from the period 1757-59
have been made by Sajnovics.223 His service as a secretary is further corroborated in a letter
from Franciscus Weiss, dated Tyrnavia 23 December 1758, in which Weiss asks Hell to
“make sure that the parts that I asked for from his Ephemerides are copied by the Honourable
Magister Sajnovics”.224 In 1764, Sajnovics figures on a list of Theologi 4. Anni (‘theology
students in the fourth year’) at the University of Vienna in a Jesuit catalogue. In the same
year, he also took part in observations at Hell’s observatory.225 In 1765, Sajnovics served in
Posonium again, before he was appointed the assistant (socius) of Franciscus Weiss in his
220
Also spelled Sainovics, Sajnovits, Sajnovich, etc.
Alba Regalis (L) = Fejér (H), Weißenburg (G).
222
Sajnovics, Demonstratio. Idioma Ungarorum et Lapponum idem esse 1770a1, p. [x] = [1771], p. [x]: “Ast
ego, quem in Ungaria ab Ungaris Progenitoribus nasci, atque educari contigit, quique Sermone Patrio publica
compluribus annis munia pertractavi,” etc.
223
WUS Vienna. Transcripts of correspondence from the year 1760 are missing, whereas the transcripts from
1761 have been made by another hand.
224
Weiss to Hell in Vienna, dated Tyrnavia 23 December 1758 (WUS Vienna, secr. copy): “[…] q[uo]d R a Va
pro singulari sua in me benevolentia Per R. M. Sajnovics, petita ex Suis Ephemeridibus describi Curet”. Ephemerides might here refer to a diary, or journal of observations, not necessarily the printed Ephemerides.
225
Hell, “Observationes Astronomicæ Anni 1763, et 1764. Viennæ et aliis locis factæ” 1764b, pp. 322-323.
221
- 116 -
observatory in Tyrnavia the year after.226 It was from there that Sajnovics arrived in Vienna
shortly before the outset of the expedition to resume his role as an assistant of the Imperial
Astronomer, this time during his expedition to the Far North.227
Why Sajnovics was chosen as an assistant for the expedition is something of a puzzle. Two
explanations surface in the literature, each of which have their basis in primary sources. In the
introductory chapter to the Expeditio litteraria (edited below), Maximilianus Hell states the
obvious, that Sajnovics was chosen because of his likable personality, his good health and his
astronomical skills. Elsewhere, however, a contradictory explanation is given, which calls for
some consideration. In contrast to Father Hell himself, Sajnovics’ mother tongue was
Hungarian. During his stay in Finnmark County of Norway, Sajnovics undertook a thorough
examination of the “Lappish” (Sámi) language, which he published in Copenhagen as a
Demonstratio Idioma Ungarorum et Lapponum idem esse (‘Demonstration that the Language
of the Hungarians and the Lapps is the Same’, 1770a1). This investigation, usually referred to
simply as the Demonstratio, has became a veritable classic of comparative linguistics.
Already in the 1770s and 1780s, it received considerable attention. In the text of the
Demonstratio, we find the explanation that Sajnovics was chosen as Hell’s travel companion
because he was to investigate a possible linguistic link between the Sámi language and his
native Hungarian.
In the first, Copenhagen edition of the Demonstratio, Father Hell is acknowledged for having
asked Sajnovics to undertake this research, for pointing out certain methodological guidelines
for his interviews with native Sámi speakers and for never allowing him to give up even
though the task proved difficult. The second, enlarged edition of the Demonstratio, published
in Tyrnavia upon Sajnovics’ return from his expedition, goes even further. Hell is now
credited with having been present during interviews with local Sámi in Vardø. And amongst
several other additions, we find a long letter from Hell to Sajnovics arguing for a probable
heritage of the “Hungarian dialects” (one would now say Finno-Ugrian languages) from
226
In the Ephemerides of Hell, Sajnovics is mentioned among the observers in Tyrnavia from January 1767
onwards (Hell, “Observationes Astronomicæ Anni 1766. Viennæ & aliis locis ab exercitatis Observatoribus
factæ” 1767b, pp. 272-276).
227
Key dates from Sajnovics’ early career are taken from Kisbán 1943 and Erdődi 1970 and supplemented by the
Ephemerides of Hell and the Jesuit catalogues Austria. Catalogi Breves 1763-1765 and 1766-1769.
- 117 -
Chinese. As to the cause for electing Sajnovics as travel companion, the following statement
is found in the slightly rephrased introduction to the second edition:228
For he [scil. Hell], with the same benevolence that he had bestowed upon me
already some time ago, during that two-year period when he wanted me to assist
him in his astronomical tasks in Vienna, had chosen me also for this expedition
to the Far North, and brought me along to Finnmark as a travel companion and
an assistant in his activities, in particular in his endeavours to investigate the
Lappish language [my italics]. This was an occasion for Hungarians to visit the
Lapps, this was an occasion to test the conjecture of a correlation between the
Hungarian and Lappish language, which Honourable Father Hell had formed in
his mind already beforehand, from reading the Lapponia of Schefferus and the
Erdbeschreibung of Büsching, a conjecture he had mentioned to me every so
often during the journey.
This first part of this quotation is entirely missing in the first edition of the Demonstratio.
From this addition to the second, Tyrnavian edition, we get the impression that Sajnovics’
potentials for linguistic research were quite as important as his skills as an astronomer, when
Hell chose him as travel companion. The puzzling inconsistence between the two statements
has led to some discussion: was Sajnovics chosen as a travel companion in order to
investigate the Lappish language, or was he chosen because he was a likeable person and an
able astronomer?
A Hungarian author who has produced numerous articles on the expedition of Hell and
Sajnovics, Lajos Bartha, in a paper of 1983 (in Hungarian) conjectures that Hell’s real agenda
was to make Sajnovics the director of a new observatory that he wished to see constructed at
the Jesuit collegium in Hungarian Buda. By bringing him along on his glorious expedition,
Hell wished to qualify his promising pupil for such a post. The investigation of the Sámi
language and its affinity with Hungarian must have been something that came up by chance
while they were in Norway, Bartha argues. Only after the event did Sajnovics decide to credit
228
Sajnovics Demonstratio … [1771], pp. [xi-xii]: “Ipse enim me, eadem benevolentia, qua olim jam biennio
integro Viennæ in Astronomicis sibi ad manus esse voluit, Expeditionis quoque hujus ad Arctos delegit comitem,
& laborum suorum, ac potissimum (disquisitionis Idiomatis Lapponici causa suscipiendorum) futurum socium,
secum in Finmarchiam detulit. // Hic enimvero inter Lappones versari licuit Ungaris, hic conjecturam, quam R.
P. HELL de convenientia Idiomatis Ungarici cum Lapponico, pridem antea e Lapponia SCHEFFERI, &
Geographia BÜSCHINGII mente præconceperat, mihique per iter sæpius commemoraverat, periclitari […]”.
The parentheses around disquisitionis … suscipiendorum are difficult to explain. In my translation, I have
interpreted ac potissimum to belong within the parentheses. Monika Ehlers seems to have made the same
correction as well (cf. Sajnovics 1972, p. 9). The second part of the quotation, Hic enimvero etc., is present in
both editions, with the notable exception that the original Ungaro (‘a Hungarian’) has been changed into Ungaris
(‘Hungarians’) in the Tyrnavian edition (cf. Sajnovics 1770a1, p. [xi] versus Sajnovics [1771], p. [xii]). Thus, by
implication it was not only ‘Sajnovics the Hungarian’ who had occasion to spend some time among the Lapps,
but ‘Hell and Sajnovics the Hungarians’.
- 118 -
his mentor with having been so “thoroughly foreseeing while planning the expedition, thereby
enhancing the reputation of his confrère”.229 Gyula Décsy and Wolfgang Veenker, in their
afterword to a modern translation of the Tyrnavian Demonstratio (published in 1972), state
that Sajnovics included the long letter of Hell’s along with other additions in the Tyrnavian
edition “probably only out of politeness”.230
Both Bartha and the editors of the modern edition of the Demonstratio are on the right track.
However, the real explanation to the additions and alterations in the Tyrnavian edition can be
proven to exceed mere politeness. It turned out during my investigation of Hell’s manuscripts
in Vienna that several significant additions to the Demonstratio had not been made by
Sajnovics at all – they were in fact dictated by Hell, word by word (See Fig. 1 and 2 below).
What was going on here, was that Maximilianus Hell wanted to be credited with the honour of
having discovered the ‘Lappish-Hungarian’ linguistic link, and what is more, of having
discovered it not by chance, but as a result of careful planning. In a letter to the abovementioned Jesuit Georgius Pray, who precisely in this period was establishing himself as a
prominent historian of Hungarian history, Hell exclaims that:231
Nothing, therefore, of all this has to do with Father Sajnovics, neither does any
of the other research made during the expedition pertain to him; except that [he]
assisted me in some tasks according to my instructions and my ideas; thus,
whatever has been revealed, elaborated, discovered and so on, has to do with me
only, and the Demonstration of the identity of the Lappish and Hungarian
language, as regards the structure of the work, the arguments, its elaboration and
so on […] has itself been accomplished according to my ideas and instructions.
This statement stands in stark contrast to statements that were made on the spot. In a letter to
the confessor of Maria Theresa, Father Höller SJ, Hell exclaims (Vardø, 6 April 1769):232
229
Bartha 1983, p. 300: “Ezért azt a gyanút keltik, hogy Sajnovics utólag szerette volna bemutatni, mennyire
előrelátóan járt el Hell az expedíció szervezésénel, ezzel is öregbítve rendtársa hírnevét”.
230
Décsy & Veenker 1972, p. 159: “wahrscheinlich nur aus Höflichkeitsgrunden”.
231
Hell in a letter to Georgius Pray, quoted by Anna Jászó 1983, p. 259: “Nihil ergo horum omnium ad Patrem
Sajnovics pertinent; nihil etiam de laboribus in Expeditione susceptis ad eum spectat, nisi quantum is [scripsi; in
Jászó] sub mea directione, et juxta mentem meam mihi in quibusdam ad manum fuit; quidquid igitur detectum,
elaboratum, repertum et cetera est, id solum ad me pertinet, ipsaque demonstratio identitatis idiomatis Lapponici
et Ungarici, quoad oeconomiam operis, argumenta, dispositionem et cetera … mea confecta est mente, et
directione …”. The letter is not dated by Jászó, but she refers to “les ms. de la Bibliothèque de l’Université de
Budapest, Collection Prayana, T. XVIII, pièce no 24, feuillet 2”. In November 2007, through my scientific
assistant Ágnes Kunszenti, I ordered scannings of all letters from Hell to Pray from the Eötvös Lorand
University Library of Budapest. We received a DVD containing a considerable number of letters addressed to
Pray by Hell (See Unprinted Sources, 1a), but none containing this particular sentence.
232
“Mira dei dispositio, quod socium linguae nostrae gnarum P. Sajnovics meae hujus expeditionis elegerim.
Laudemus Deum in inventione fratrum nostrorum” (quoted from Pinzger 1927, p. 93).
- 119 -
Mysterious the work of God, that made me choose Father Sajnovics, who knows
our language, as the travel companion of this expedition of mine. Let us praise
God for the discovery of our brothers [i.e., the Sámi]!
Another letter from Vardø, addressed to Antonius Pilgram, the substitute at the Imperial and
Royal Observatory, contains an even more bewildering statement (Vardø, 5 April 1769):233
[You] must have had a prophetic spirit, when You in Your letter to Sajnovics
wrote: “I salute the dark pastorella a thousand times”, and “I expect Lappish
eclogues from him”; in fact, You, and the entire European world of learning
may expect concerning the Lappish race a new discovery, which will be
received with bewilderment by entire Europe. I, who formed this conjecture
about the Lapps from the very beginning, gave him some rules and criteria,
according to which he was to do this research, and now we have reached such
clarity, that no human being will doubt this. Indeed, indeed, Sajnovics is in fact
able to make “Lappish eclogues”; I am quite satisfied to have chosen him as my
travel companion, he who so readily and in such a brief span of time was able to
learn the Lappish language. I have asked him to extract some memorable stories
from our diary and send them to [You], so that You may share them with our
friends in Vienna. [...] I beg you, however, to please make sure this discovery
arrives to the ears of Herr Van Swieten; he will find pleasure therein, since he
was the one who bade me do this investigation [my italics]; but please give him
only the general information that they [scil. the Sámi] are no Americans, but real
Orientals, as we will have the honour to inform him in detail upon our return.
The very idea of investigating the origin of the Sámi population is here attributed to (the antiJesuit!) Van Swieten, a detail which was never to re-emerge in Hell’s or Sajnovics’ texts. In
search for an explanation of Hell’s jealous claim to the honour of the discovery, one should
look into the local contexts in which the Demonstratio was promoted.
While they stayed in Denmark-Norway, Hell and Sajnovics enjoyed the patronage of the
mighty Interior Minister, patron of the University of Copenhagen, praeses (‘president’) of the
Royal Society of Sciences in Copenhagen and head of the ‘missionary collegium’ that was
233
Hell to Pilgram, Vardø 5th April 1769 (quoted after Pinzger 1927, pp. 67-68): “Euer Erhw. müssen einen
prophetischen geist gehabt haben, da Sie an Hh. Saj. in Ihrem brieffe geschrieben: Nigram Pastorellam ... millies
saluto, et Lapponicas ab eo Eclogas exspecto: in wahrheit, Sie, und die gantze europäische gelehrte welt haben
eine neue entdekung der Lappländischen nation zu erwarten, die gantz Europa mit erstaunen vernehmen wird;
ich der ich gleich anfangs von denen Lappländern diese muthmassung gefasset, gab Ihm einige Regeln und
criteria, nach welchen er diese untersuchung machen solte, und nun sind wir so im klaren, dass kein mensch
daran zweiflen wird. ja ja in wahrheit, er ist in stande Lappländische Eclogen zu machen; ich bin recht vergnügt,
dass ich ihme zum Reise gefährten gewählet, der so fertig und in so kurtzer Zeit die Lappländische sprache hat
erlehrnen können. ich habe ihme gebetten, auß unserm diario einige merkwürdigkeiten auß zu ziehen und an
Euer Ehrw. zu schreiben, die sie mit unsern Wienner-freunden communiciren könen [...]. Machen Sie doch, ich
bitte Sie, dass diese entdekung zu ohren des Hh. von Swietten komme; sie würden ihm ein Vergnügen machen,
als welcher mich ersuchet, diese untersuchung zu machen; melden Sie Ihm aber nur en general, dass Sie keine
amerikaner, sondern wahrhaftig orientaler sind, wie wir die Ehre haben werden, ihm außführlich zu berichten”.
- 120 -
responsible for church services in the Sámi regions (the Collegium de cursu evangelii
promovendo), Otto Thott (1703–1785). Thott acknowledged Hell’s and Sajnovics’ status as
experts and supported their efforts to promote an understanding of Sámi as what we might
coin the ‘Ur-Hungarian of the High North’. One significant decision of his was that the
official Danish dictionary of the Lappish language, which was just then being published, was
to be revised and reissued according to the Hungarian orthography, in keeping with
recommendations from the Hungarian visitors. In doing so, Thott overruled protests from
Norwegian priests and missionaries who had formed a divergent understanding of the Sámi
language and its origins.234 The ‘Royal stamp’ that protected Hell and Sajnovics while in
Denmark-Norway, also secured them collaboration from virtually every core member of the
Royal Society of Copenhagen. This is evident from the concluding chapter of Sajnovics’
Demonstratio, where numerous savants who had contributed to the studies of Sajnovics by
lending him books and offering other sorts of assistance, are singled out and thanked. Not
surprisingly, Thott was the dedicatee of both editions of the Demonstratio. In December 1770,
however, in the aftermath of a coup staged by Christian VII’s personal physician Johann
Friedrich Struensee (1737-1772), Thott was forced to resign all his offices. Hell and Sajnovics
lost their chief patron in Copenhagen and the ‘magyarisation’ of Danish-Norwegian language
politics vis-à-vis the Sámi was discontinued. In the meanwhile, however, the two Jesuits had
returned to their homes and the Demonstratio had become an issue on the Central-European
agenda.
Upon their return to the centres of the intellectual culture of the Hungarian Enlightenment,
which included the Habsburg capital Vienna, the Hungarian capital Posonium and the
Hungarian university town Tyrnavia, Hell and Sajnovics had to fight for their authority as
experts on Hungarian language and history. The second edition of the Demonstratio, which
was issued in Tyrnavia sometime between February and April 1771,235 contains several
234
This story is recounted in detail by Martinussen 1992 (in Norwegian; for a brief English summary of her
conclusions see Hovdhaugen et al. 2000). See also Aspaas in press (in Finnish) and Sammalahti 1996.
235
It is often overlooked that the year of printing is missing on the title page of both the first and the second
editions of the Demonstratio. The Copenhagen edition states: Regiae Scientiarum Societati Danicae praelecta
Hafniae mense Januario Anno MDCCLXX (‘Read before the Royal Danish Society of Sciences in Copenhagen,
in the month of January of the year 1770’). The Tyrnavian edition reads: Regiae Scientiarum Societati Danicae
praelecta, et Typis excusa Hafniae Anno MDCCLXX. Recusa Tyrnaviae (‘Read before the Royal Danish Society
of Sciences, and printed in Copenhagen in the year 1770. Reprinted in Tyrnavia’). The date of publication is well
documented in the case of the first edition: On 4 March, the proofs were still being read, but on 10 April 1770,
Sajnovics received a copy fresh from the press (Sajnovics, travel diary, entries 4 March and 10 April 1770 [WUS
Vienna]). The second edition is not that easy. Correspondence confirms, however, that it was published later
than January 1771, for in a letter to Georgius Pray in Posonium Hell writes: “Pater Sajnovics vix mense Januario
- 121 -
references to Hell as a ‘Hungarus’. The first edition refers only to Sajnovics as ‘Hungarus’. In
the interval between the Copenhagen and the Tyrnavian edition, the work of one Hungarian,
Sajnovics, had become the work of two Hungarians, Hell and Sajnovics (in that order).236
What had happened?
Maximilianus Hell, it will be remembered, was recorded as fluent in Latin, German and
“Slavic” – not Hungarian – when he entered the Society of Jesus at the age of eighteen. His
parents were both German speakers. Nevertheless, in 1756 he is recorded in a Jesuit document
as an Ungarus Schemnicziensis (‘Hungarus from Schemnicium’).237 His status as a ‘non
Hungarian-speaking Hungarian’ was unproblematic, but only up to a point. The early-modern
identity of the Hungarus, which could legitimately be claimed by any person born and raised
in the composite Kingdom of Hungary regardless of his native language, came under
increased pressure during the Central-European Enlightenment. By 1770, a competitive,
haughty Magyar identity was on the rise, nurtured by an influential group of intellectuals.
Several of these intellectuals belonged to the so-called “Hungarian Guards” of Maria Theresa.
The Hungarian Guards did not simply build their identity on their mastery of the Hungarian
language, but even more so on “a prestigious pedigree and social exclusiveness”. 238 Fair to
say, like Hell and Sajnovics, the Hungarian Guards promoted the Hungarian language, but
they were not eager to see their status being challenged by theories of linguistic affinity – and
thereby historical kinship – to less noble peoples at the outskirts of, or even beyond, European
Viennam excurrere poterit, neque enim opus ejus mense Januario typis absolvendum arbitror, gaudebo, si vel
cum fine februarij me inviserit” = “Father Sajnovics will hardly be able to go to Vienna in the month of January,
and I doubt that his work will be ready from the press in this month either: if he can manage to come around the
end of February, I shall be happy” (Hell to Pray, dated Vienna 4 January 1771 [EL Budapest]). In a letter dated
10 January 1771, Hell asks the same man to pass on some papers to Tyrnavia “pro opusculo Patris Sajnovics
reprimendo” = “for the new edition of Father Sajnovics’ work”. It is crucial that Pray takes care of this task as
soon as possible, he adds, “hujus enim defectu dissertatio Patris Sajnovics nondum inchoari potuit” = “for
without this, Father Sajnovics has so far been unable to begin his work” (Hell to Pray, dated Vienna 10 January
1771 [EL Budapest]). From a letter dated 29 March 1771, it emerges that Sajnovics has by then arrived in
Vienna, probably to promote the new edition of the Demonstratio (Hell to Pray, dated 29 March 1771 [EL
Budapest]) By May of the same year, Sajnovics had returned to Tyrnavia and could boast about the favourable
reception that his work had received in Vienna (Sajnovics to Joannes Nagy, dated Tyrnavia 12 May 1771
[transcript in Holovics 1972]). See also Gheno 1975 (in Italian) for a good discussion of the internal evidence in
the printed text of the Tyrnavian edition.
236
It might also be mentioned that, in an early manuscript draft to the call for subscriptions to the Expeditio
litteraria, Hell points to Sajnovics as the author of a chapter of the first volume: “the treatise of Father Sajnovics
on the identity of the Hungarian and Lappish language”. In all printed versions, however, the name of Sajnovics
had been erased, and Hell promises only a chapter on “[t]he origin and occasion of this investigation of the
Lappish language” (See below, Chapter III.2, Tomi I. Pars III. Caput I).
237
Pinzger 1920, p. 30. The document in question is the Liber votorum domus Professae Viennensis; a list of
Jesuits having sworn the four vows of loyalty, the fourth of which was to the Pope. This solemn ceremony took
place in Hell’s case in 1756, in that of Sajnovics, in 1766.
238
Kontler 2011, p. 139; repeated in Kontler in press.
- 122 -
civilisation. In this situation, Hell and Sajnovics filled the second edition of the Demonstratio
with references to several Hungarian-speaking erudites, most of whom were Jesuits, who had
read the first edition and embraced its main thesis: that there existed a close kinship between
Hungarian and Sámi. What is more, the concluding chapter contains explicit reference to the
support of Maria Theresa, and (more vaguely) to “each and every one of the highest men” in
the Hungarian capital Posonium.239 However, by 1770 it was not sufficient to appeal to the
patronage of Maria Theresa and her protégés, for the Empress had become increasingly
estranged from her Hungarian Guards after a bitter confrontation with the Hungarian Diet in
1764-65. Nevertheless, in the local context of Vienna and Hungary, the discovery of a
Hungarian-Lappish relationship, and the speculations concerning the historical heritage of the
Hungarian nation that it entailed, was the main ‘scientific capital’ that the two Jesuits had
assembled in the High North. Father Hell was not willing to let all that honour remain with his
assistant. Nor was he willing to let his legitimacy as an authoritative investigator of Hungarian
history, which he planned to develop further in his grand Expeditio litteraria, be challenged
on the grounds that he did not master the Hungarian language. This explains why
Maximilianus Hell insisted on being ascribed the honour of the Lappish-Hungarian discovery,
and to be characterised as a native Hungarian alongside Sajnovics.
A “third edition” of the Demonstratio was to be published within the framework of the
Expeditio litteraria – or to be precise, it was to fill the third part of volume one. The
correspondence of Hell from 1771-72, along with several unfinished treatises and notes
preserved among his papers at the Vienna University Observatory, bear witness of an acute
interest in the ‘Hungarian question’.240 Major sources for the early history of the Magyars
were examined by Father Hell in this period, including ‘The Deeds of the Hungarians’ (Gesta
Hungarorum) written around the year 1200 by the so-called Anonymus, or Notary of King
Bela, and the De Administrando Imperio (‘On How to Govern the Empire’) of Constantinus
Porphyrogenitus, a Byzantine Emperor and writer of the tenth century.241
239
Sajnovics [1771], p. 127: “quemquam ex summis in Republica nostra Viris, […] prout mihi experiri licuit,
quando superiore Autumno plerosque Eorum præsens veneratus sum”.
240
See Unprinted Sources 1c and 2c.
241
Two chapters of the Expeditio litteraria were supposed to be devoted to the Anonymus and to Constantinus
VII Porphyrogenitus respectively (See Chapter III.2, Tomi I. Pars III. Caput VI-VII). On the Anonymus, see now
the edition of Martyn Rady and László Veszprémy in the outstanding series Central European Medieval Texts
(Anonymus 2010). On Porphyrogenitus, see the edition by Moravcsik, Jenkins and Dvornik (Constantine VII
Porphygenitus 1962-67).
- 123 -
FIGURES 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d MAXIMILIANUS HELL’S INFLUENCE ON THE SECOND
EDITION OF SAJNOVICS’ DEMONSTRATIO
Fig. 1a
From the introduction to the first edition of Sajnovics’ Demonstratio (Sajnovics 1770a1,
introduction, no page). One notes that there is no mention of Maximilianus Hell’s Hungarian
origin in the first paragraph. The second paragraph begins with the words: “Hic enimvero
inter Lappones versari licuit Ungaro …” (“For on this occasion, it was possible for a
Hungarian to spend time among the Lapps …” [my emphasis]).
*Digitised by the author.
- 124 -
FIG. 1a
- 125 -
Fig. 1b
Detail from Hell’s manuscript “Jn adlocutione ad Societatem Regiam” (WUS Vienna), a draft
for instructions to be sent to Sajnovics in Tyrnavia during the winter 1770/71. Hell’s
autograph. Translation: “In the preface to the Royal Society [of Copenhagen] // After the
words: ‘Imperial and Royal Astronomer from the University of Vienna’, [add the following:]
‘also a Hungarian by nation, invited to Vardøhus by the redoubtable Majesty King Christian
VII of Denmark and Norway in order to observe the transit of Venus in front of the disc of the
Sun. Since the same Hell, formerly my teacher in astronomical subjects, had chosen me as his
travel companion in order to assist him in his astronomical tasks and in particular the
examination of the Lappish language, I set off for Finnmark, where I spent about a year. // For
on this occasion, it was possible for Hungarians to spend time among the Lapps; on this
occasion, it was possible to put to the test Father Hell’s conjecture, which he based upon the
Geographia [“Erdbeschreibung”] of Büsching and the Lapponia of Schefferus and which he
had frequently mentioned to me during the journey; [on this occasion, it was possible] to test
their pronunciation with the language of the Hungarians etc. etc.’ […]”.
*Digitised by the author.
- 126 -
FIG.1b
- 127 -
Fig. 1c and 1d
The corresponding pages from the second edition of Sajnovics’ Demonstratio (1771,
unpaginated introduction). One notes that Hell’s instructions in Fig. 1b have been followed
closely. Among the most significant alterations is the consistent designation of Hell as a
Hungarian. For example, whereas the first edition had “Hic enimvero inter Lappones versari
licuit Ungaro …” (Fig. 1a), the second edition has “His enimvero inter Lappones versari licuit
Ungaris … (Fig. 1d; “For on this occasion, it was possible for Hungarians to spend time
among the Lapps …” [my emphasis]).
*Digitised by the author.
- 128 -
FIG. 1d
FIG. 1c
- 129 -
FIGURES 2a and 2b
MAXIMILIANUS HELL’S INFLUENCE ON THE SECOND
EDITION OF SAJNOVICS’ DEMONSTRATIO, PART II
Fig. 2a
Detail from the second edition of the Demonstratio (Sajnovics 1771, p. 119), ostensibly
giving a summary of a genuine letter from Hell in Vienna to Sajnovics.
Fig. 2b
Hell’s manuscript beginning with the words “Jn eo autem opere ...”, a draft for instructions to
be sent to Sajnovics in Tyrnavia during the winter 1770/71. The first couple of lines translates
as “Moreover, in the same work (as I learned from the same letter of Father Hell’s, recently
sent to me from Vienna), he will not only demonstrate the common origin of each of the two
peoples, that is the Hungarians and the Lapps, he will also, by means of weighty evidence,
show that the Fenni, or Finns, are the ancestors of all the various tribes that use the Hungarian
language, and especially that the ancient fatherland of that most noble Hungarian tribe, which
inhabits Hungary, was Carjelia, and that the Carjelians are the genuine ancestors of the
Magyars and Hungarians […]”. Hell’s autograph.
*Digitised by the author.
- 130 -
FIG 2a
FIG. 2b
- 131 -
We return now to the call for subscriptions to the Expeditio litteraria. Unlike Sajnovics’ work
on the Sámi language, the second part of volume one (which was to contain ethnographical
descriptions of the Lapps) was never published. The preserved manuscripts are few and
insignificant as compared to the texts on Hungarian history and language. However, when
investigating the chapter headings of this part of the Expeditio litteraria, one suspects that it
would have consisted mainly in a summary of an original work by the Norwegian priest and
Lappish-language professor Knud Leem (1697-1774). The chapter headings in the bilingual,
richly illustrated ‘Description of the Lapps of Finnmark’ (Beskrivelse over Finmarkens
Lapper / De Lapponibus Finnmarchiae … Descriptio, Copenhagen 1767) incidentally match
the chapters planned by Hell quite well.242 A few comments would probably have been added
by Hell, based on his Lapland experiences, but one may assume that this part of the Expeditio
litteraria would have relied mostly on Leem’s work.
Most parts of the second volume, the Tomus Physicus, were never published. From references
in letters and other sources we do know, however, approximately what it would have looked
like. It was meant to be divided into the following parts:
Volume II. Physicus
Part I: On plants, animals, fish, etc. in northern Norway; Part II: On the decrease
of the sea level in the far north; Part III: On the luminescence of the sea in the
far north (“morild” in Norwegian); Part IV: A new theory of the Aurora
Borealis; Part V: Meteorological observations, including investigation of the
ebb and flow of the tides, etc. Part VI: Economical remarks.
Neither Hell nor Sajnovics could boast of a background as natural historians. In research
relating to part one of this volume, they were aided by a theology student who had been
educated by Linnaeus at Uppsala, Jens Finne Borchgrevink (1736-1819). On the part of the
journey spent north of Trondheim, Borchgrevink had filled the triple role of a scientific
assistant, translator and ‘tour guide’ to the company.243 A letter from Hell to the professor of
botany in Copenhagen, Georg Christoph Oeder (1728-1791), dated Vardø 6 April 1769, is
preserved. Here, Hell promises to collect “algae, mosses and other aquatic plants” for Oeder
to make use of for his purposes.244 Collecting plants of the Danish-Norwegian kingdom was
now a priority, in conjunction with the richly illustrated Flora Danica, which was being
242
Compare Leem 1975 (facsimile edition) versus Hell’s call for subscriptions. For a more elaborate discussion
of the Leem-Hell relationship, see Aspaas in press.
243
See Voje Johansen 2004.
244
Hell to Oëder, dated Vardø 6 April 1769 (WUS Vienna, draft): “algas fucosque, cæterasque Plantas
aquaticas”.
- 132 -
edited during these years. What came of Hell’s promised contribution to this prestigious
project merits a study in its own right.245 In any case, for this part of the Expeditio litteraria
Maximilianus Hell is likely to have drawn heavily upon a pioneering work by the bishop and
amateur natural historian Erik Pontoppidan (1698-1764), Norges Naturlige Historie (two
vols., published Copenhagen 1752-53, also in English as ‘The Natural History of Norway’).246
This richly illustrated work was also available in a German translation, which Hell had
read.247 Apart from enumerations of species of plants, animals and so on, this volume would
contain observations concerning the decrease of the sea level along the northernmost coasts of
Norway248 and an explanation of the luminescence of the sea at night, the so-called morild.249
A new theory on the northern lights was also announced. The first and fundamental part of his
very interesting, albeit mistaken Aurorae Borealis Theoria Nova (‘New Theory on the Aurora
Borealis’), was presented as a lecture to the Royal Society of Copenhagen in March 1770 and
published in Vienna in 1776. Here, Hell dismisses a possible correlation between the northern
lights and magnetism as well as electricity. Instead, the Aurora Borealis was a “purely optical
phenomenon”. Despite Hell’s explicit comparison of his theory with the discoveries of
Copernicus, it hardly received unanimous support from the research community.250
Finally, as late as 1792, the year in which he died, Father Hell published his meteorological
report from Vardøhus, which was also meant to be a part of volume II. 251 Other minor parts of
this volume are either lost or were never written.
245
The incursions into the subject in Aspaas & Voje Johansen 2004b and Jørgensen 2007 are mere beginnings.
Pontoppidan 1977 (facsimile of the original, published in Copenhagen 1752-1753). The English edition was
first published in 1755 (London: A. Linde).
247
Pontoppidan 1753-1754.
248
For this branch of Hell’s research, see Kragemo 1960 or Aspaas 2008c (supplemented by sources not used by
Kragemo).
249
Hell rightly found that this phenomenon was caused by small shrimps (Hansen & Aspaas 2005, p. 9). He
mentions this discovery in several letters. Particularly elaborate are his descriptions in letters to Bishop
Gunnerus, founding father of the Society of Sciences in Trondheim, dated Vardø 15 January 1769 and 6 April
1769 (printed in Pinzger 1927, pp. 59-62 & 83-86). Hell promised in these letters to submit an article on his
findings to the Proceedings (Skrifter) of the Royal Society of Trondheim, edited by Gunnerus, but such a work
was never issued.
250
Hell 1776b. On the auroral theories of Hell and other central-European contemporaries, see Réthly & Berkes
1963, pp. 18-27. A paper in English on this branch of Hell’s research is available on the internet (Aspaas 2008e).
In a future work, I hope to investigate the northern lights studies of Maximilianus Hell in more detail.
251
Hell 1792. This early series of meteorological observations seems to have escaped the notice of historians of
meteorology in Norway. In his survey of “Early Meteorological Obervations in Vardø” (in German), Birkeland
mentions a brief series of data from 1829-31 as the earliest from Finnmark (Birkeland 1835). Nor does Kragemo
mention Hell’s meteorological report in his articles on the Vardøhus expedition (Kragemo 1933, 1960, 1968).
For a recent account in Hungarian, see Bartha 2004b.
246
- 133 -
The third volume was where Hell and Sajnovics were on more solid ground. Their status as
astronomers and ‘mathematicians’ in the eighteenth-century sense of the word was hardly
contested. In brief, the third volume was to consist of the following works:
Volume III. Mathematicus, & Astronomicus
Part I: The latitude and longitude of Vardø, description of the observatory and
instruments used in Vardø during 1768-69, the refraction of the atmosphere in
the far north, the observation of the transit of Venus itself, and an accurate
determination of the solar parallax; Part II: Geographical latitudes determined
en route between Copenhagen and Vardø; Part III: Observations Pertaining to
the Declination of the Magnetic Needle; Part IV: A new Method to Determine
the Figure of the Earth, by means of Barometric Observations
The first printed result of the expedition was the Observatio Transitus Veneris …
Wardoëhusii … facta (‘Observation of the Transit of Venus Made in Vardøhus’, Copenhagen
1770a1). This text not only contains the data sets of the observation of the transit: Hell also
gives a brief presentation of the Expeditio litteraria, a discussion of the refraction of the
atmosphere on such high latitudes, as well as a thorough determination of the latitude and
longitude of Vardø (See Chapter II.3). After the first edition in Copenhagen in February 1770,
three further Latin editions as well as a Danish translation of the Observatio were issued later
in the same year.252 One particular part of the Observatio, on how to determine the latitude by
means of stars culminating in the same zenith distance, was the subject for a more elaborate
account in the Ephemerides Astronomicae for the year 1775 (Vienna 1774).253 As for the
“accurate determination of the solar parallax” that was meant to be included in the Expeditio
litteraria, this instead took the form of two intricate and polemical pamphlets, issued as
appendices to the Ephemerides Astronomicae for the years 1773 and 1774 (published 1772
and 1773). The contents of these works and their reception will be analysed in subsequent
parts of this thesis.
The second part of volume three would consist of contributions to the geography of western
Scandinavia. Hell presented a report on his latitude determinations made en route between
Copenhagen and Vardø at a session of the Copenhagen Society of Sciences in May 1770. It
was translated into Danish and printed in the proceedings (Skrifter) of the Copenhagen
252
See Table 5 in Chapter II.3.
Hell, “Methodus astronomica Sine usu Quadrantis, vel Sectoris, aut alterius cujusvis instrumenti, in gradus
Circuli divisi, item sine notitia refractionis, ope solius tubi instructi micrometro filari, singula secunda indicante,
et in apto ad hunc usum fulcro mobili applicati, elevationem Poli cujusvis loci, in continente siti, accuratissimam
definire” 1774. This has been described as the Horrebow-Talcott method.
253
- 134 -
Society of Sciences in the same year.254 Not until 1790 was an (enlarged) edition of the Latin
original issued in Vienna, as a supplement to the Ephemerides Astronomicae for the year
1791. Maps were also made, among them a frequently reprinted map of the island Vardø, and
maps on “Norway, Nordland and Finnmark”. The latter three should in modern terms
represent southern Norway, present-day Nordland and Troms counties and Finnmark county.
According to Hell, he sent test-prints of these maps to the Copenhagen Society of Sciences
around 1778, but these have yet to be found.255
The third part of the third volume, on the declination of the magnetic needle, has survived in
manuscript. However, the observations were not published until 236 years after they had been
made, in a report by Truls Lynne Hansen and the author of this thesis.256 The fourth part is not
extant, either in manuscript or in any printed version, but can be reconstructed through Hell’s
correspondence and other sources. By means of barometrical observations, Hell argued, it
should be possible to determine the curvature of the Earth’s surface far more accurately than
Maupertuis had done some decades earlier.257 Fortunately for Hell, he never published this
part, for this marvellous idea was surely a dead end.
To sum up, Maximilianus Hell had planned to make a grand work on the High North of
Europe. In retrospect, one may characterise his work as one of the gloriously announced but
never accomplished masterpieces of the history of science. Moreover, what was conceived on
Danish-Norwegian soil as a work focusing on the High North, soon had its emphasis
254
Hell “Nogle Steders Geographiske Breder i Finmarken, Nordlandene, Norge og Sverrige bestemmede ved
astronomiske Observationer” 1770b. The Latin original is today preserved at the National Library in Oslo.
255
Hell 1790, p. 310: “Hæ chartæ, Æri insculptæ, jam ante Annos duodecim Illustrissimæ Societati Scientiarum
Hafniensi transmissæ sunt” = “These maps, engraved on copper, were sent to the highly illustrious Society of
Sciences in Copenhagen already twelve years ago”. These maps were for a time in the hands of the prominent
Norwegian historian Gerhard Schøning (1722-1780), who has left a brief report on the names of places they
included. It is not known whether these maps exist today (cf. Kristian Nissen’s manuscript “Pater Hells
Norgeskarter fra tiden omkring 1770”, intended as a chapter in the unpublished Bidrag til Norges karthistorie,
III [Nasjonalbiblioteket, Oslo. MS 4o. 3051:c7]).
256
Hansen & Aspaas 2005. Lajos Bartha published a study based on part of these manuscripts in 2004 (Bartha
2004a), cf. Aspaas & Hansen 2007, endnote 1.
257
A particularly valuable source, which I have never seen quoted in this context, is Christianus Mayer SJ’s
lengthy treatise Ad Augustissimam Russiarum omnium Catharinam II. Alexiewnam Imperatricem Expositio de
transitu Veneris …1769b. On pages 304-323 Mayer elaborates on the potentials of using barometric observations
from various places as a means to settle several questions, among them the figure of the Earth: “for this reason,
Honourable Father Hell, that famous astronomer of Vienna, has distributed more than twenty diligently
calibrated barometers, which he had brought with him from Vienna, to curious and able observers at various
places along his journey, so that he thereafter, upon his return from Vardøhus may receive their observations” =
“qua de causa R. P. HELL, Cel. Ille Viennensis Astronomus 20, et plura, quae secum Vienna attulerat, barometra
optime rectificata per iter diversis in locis Obseruatoribus curiosis et gnaris distribuit, vt dein eorum
obseruationes post suum Wardhusio reditum reciperet” (Mayer 1769b, p. 317).
- 135 -
‘relocated’ to Central Europe. In this process, glory turned to infamy, as we shall have
occasion to witness in coming sections of this thesis. However, if Hell and Sajnovics had
lingered on Danish-Norwegian soil for another year, their working climate would surely have
become complicated there as well. Their main patron in Copenhagen, Otto Thott was among
the victims of Struensee’s coup in the autumn of 1770 and he never regained the influence on
Danish-Norwegian politics that he enjoyed for as long as Hell’s visit on Danish-Norwegian
soil lasted. The same happened to another supporter of the two Jesuits, the foreign minister
Bernstorff.258 However, how Hell and Sajnovics might have manoeuvred in the new political
landscape of the Danish capital is a piece of contrafactual historiography that I resist the
temptation to venture into.
I.2.4 THE EX-JESUIT, 1773-1792
The fourth phase in the life of our main protagonist, from July 1773 to April 1792, is marked
by the suppression of the Society of Jesus that had fostered him, and by steps taken by the
Viennese rulers towards religious tolerance, freedom of press and ‘Germanisation’ in the
period known as the Josephine Enlightenment, or the era of “Josephismus”. Each of these
developments caused great distress to the ex-Jesuit Hell. On the other hand, Hell retained his
position as court astronomer until his death and never ceased to issue his Ephemerides. In this
sense, he remained a loyal servant of the Viennese court. However, although the Society of
Jesus as such had ceased to exist and his superiors had turned their backs on the CounterReformation, Hell remained a faithful champion of nearly all the Jesuit order stood for. For
example, he favoured Latin as opposed to the German language, and strongly disliked the
educational reforms that were implemented by his rulers. On the positive side, as Imperial
Astronomer he was given the task of drawing up a plan for a Viennese Academy of Sciences
soon after the Society of Jesus was abolished.
By far the most important turning point in Maximilianus Hell’s life occurred in the year 1773.
Prior to that year, the court astronomer had been able to publish works of science in which he
took a clear counter-reforming stance. He did so as a Jesuit and the representative of a state
whose Empress supported a distinctly pro-Catholic policy. Moreover, he was able to cultivate
an identity as a Hungarus by supporting the study of Magyar history and language; even that
258
It seems Struensee’s coup even brought an end to Danish participation in projects involving international
scientific collaboration, cf. Sortkær 2008, pp. 21-23.
- 136 -
in keeping with the pro-Hungarian ‘PR profile’ of Maria Theresa. His loyalties lay with the
Empress, with the Catholic church, with the Kingdom of Hungary – and with the Latin
language. For the first eighteen years of his service as Imperial and Royal Astronomer, there
seemingly existed no serious conflict between these loyalties. But with the fall of the Society
of Jesus, the Imperial and Royal Astronomer of Vienna became a servant of the state only.
The Pope no longer supported the Jesuits as a bulwark against heresy; it was in fact he who
had ordered the Society to cease to exist. What is more, the court in Vienna increasingly
sought to ameliorate the conditions of the Protestants and other religious minorities, thereby
distancing itself from the counter-reforming cause. In university life, a new era was in the
making. In 1778, Lutherans were formally allowed to enrol at the Vienna University, and in
1782 even Jews were admitted, if only to the faculties of Medicine and Law. Prominent
professors of theology, such as Ignatius Wurz SJ (1731-1784) and Nicolaus Muszka SJ (17131783) were sacked and had to serve in pastoral care instead.259 German was introduced as a
language of teaching and textbooks were produced in that language even at university level,
alongside Latin at first, but soon exclusively.
Since the year 1773, now an ex-Jesuit in the service of an increasingly tolerant court,
Maximilianus Hell could either choose to ‘go with the flow’ and make the most out of the
new cultural-political climate, or try to remain in contact with a network of loyal ex-Jesuits
and other conservative forces. I will try to demonstrate in this section that he did a bit of both.
First, however, a few remarks on the general intellectual development that led to the abolition
of the Jesuit order are necessary.
The suppression of the Jesuit order is linked with the ideas of the Enlightenment. In its most
radical form, Enlightenment philosophy preached division between state and church,
consistent neutrality in confessional matters and freedom of press. Anticlericalism was
ubiquitous among the radical philosophes from the start. The Society of Jesus was particularly
open to attack, given its widespread influence in teaching and its support of a tight bond
between state and church. However, decapitation of monarchs and their supporters in the
name of liberté, fraternité et égalité is a later development: up until 1789 it was still possible
to claim that Enlightenment ideals lent themselves to be combined with the very epitome of
the Ancien Régime, a Supreme Ruler. Enlightened despotism, as this ideology is often called,
259
Kröll 1971, pp. 567-568.
- 137 -
was precisely the form of state governance that was advocated by the co-ruler Joseph II from
the mid-1760s onwards. In its Central-European form, Enlightened despotism was therefore
very much underway long before Joseph II took over the throne upon the death of his mother
in November 1780. According to most historians, the reforms following Joseph’s accession
should not be interpreted as a radical break with the policies of his mother. Rather, they were
the culmination of an on-going development. For the next nine years however, until his own
death in February 1790, the sole ruler of the Habsburg lands was to put into place a multitude
of reforms, among them a highly controversial “German language edict” imposing a common
official language in the Kingdom of Hungary. So marked was the imprint of this Enlightened
ruler on the 1780s as a whole that this decade is frequently referred to in Central-European
historiography simply as the era of “Joseph(in)ismus” (Josephism, or Josephinism).260 The
brief rule of Joseph’s younger brother Leopold II (1747-1792, ruler from February 1790 to
March 1792) brought an end to Josephism and eased the strains that had arisen between
reformists and their opponents. Among Leopold’s moderate steps was annulment of the
German language edict.261 The periodisation used in this essay, however, is motivated by
Hell’s biography rather than by the succession of Emperors.
The suppression of the Society of Jesus in Austria was by no means a sudden disaster. In 1759
and 1767 respectively, Portugal and Spain had banned the order from the Iberian Peninsula as
well as all their colonies.262 In 1762, France had started a similar process, culminating in
1764.263 The Jesuits were also expelled from the Kingdom of Naples and the Dutchy of Parma
in the winter of 1767/68. As has been pointed out by Winfried Müller and other historians,
ever since the late 1740s various measures – some symbolical, some more solid – had been
taken by Viennese authorities to stifle Jesuit dominance in university life, censorship and at
court. In January 1768 even the mighty state chancellor Kaunitz is known to have expressed
his support to the idea that the Society of Jesus be abolished. Moreover, the anti-Jesuit bias of
another influential political player, Maria Theresa’s personal physician Gerhard Van Swieten,
has already been mentioned.264
260
For good accounts of the Enlightenment in the Austrian lands in English, see Balázs 1997 or Evans 2006.
See for example Király 1969.
262
See for example Aldea 1970; Schneider 1970.
263
See for example Schneider 1970; Cognet 1970, p. 442.
264
Müller 1993, pp. 238-240; see also Kröll 1973, especially p. 550.
261
- 138 -
In Hell’s letters written during his expedition in Denmark-Norway – to the General of the
Jesuit Order in Rome, to Bishop Gondola in northern Germany and to Jesuit friends in Vienna
– gossip concerning an imminent suppression of the Society is a recurring theme.265 Hell is
doing what he can, he assures his correspondents, to make a good impression of the Society of
Jesus in Denmark-Norway. And when rumours tell that the young King Christian of Denmark
and Norway during his ‘grand tour’ (1768/69) will perhaps visit Rome in addition to London
and Paris, Hell is full of hope that this will bring good news concerning future politics
towards Catholics (and Jesuits) in the lands ruled by the Copenhagen court. As late as 5 April
1773, Hell in a letter to Father Weiss in Tyrnavia ensures his confrère that266
[t]hings are going quite well with our Society, we are expecting more hilarious
news from Rome any day soon. One thing is certain: a declaration that is most
favourable towards the Society has long since been sent from our court to
Rome, not directly to the Pope, as a false rumour has it, but to the kind of men
from whom the Pope is likely to be told about it, and by now he has been told.
They say they have learnt from a French letter something I think is highly likely
to be true, namely that an instruction has been sent from the King of the French
to his ambassador in Rome Cardinal de Bernis that he shall from now on refrain
from all negative actions against the Society vis-à-vis the Pope; […] after a
week or two we will learn from official news exactly what impression the
declaration of our court has made in Rome.
Fifteen weeks later, Pope Clement XIV issued the infamous Dominus ac Redemptor noster
that brought an end to the Society of Jesus in all Catholic countries. A draft of this papal bull
had in fact been ready since December in the preceding year. Empress Maria Theresa, known
as a supporter of the Jesuits but too devout a Catholic to combat the jurisdiction of the
Church, could do nothing but consent to the orders of the Roman Pontiff. On 10 September
1773, the suppression of the Society of Jesus in the entire Habsburg Empire was officially
announced and all its estates taken over by the state.
It should be stressed that the suppression of the Jesuit order in the Habsburg lands was not as
devastating to individual Jesuits as it had been in the realms of the House of Bourbon in the
265
See the letters edited by Pinzger 1927.
Hell to Weiss in Tyrnavia, dated Vienna 6 April 1773: “Res nostræ Societatis optimè procedunt, Romà indies
lætitiora præstolamur, illud certum, Declarationem nostræ Aulæ societati faventissimam, jam dudum esse
perscriptam Romam, non ad Pontificem directè, ut falso rumore sparsum est, sed ad eos, à quibus Pontifex hanc
audire debet, et hucusque jam audivit. Narrant ex litteris gallicis haberi, id [scripsi; ei MS] quod mihi valde
credibile est, à Rege Galliarum ad Suum Legatum Romæ Cardinalem de Bernis missum mandatum, ne ipse
porro quidquam contra Societatem ageret apud Pontificem; […] post unam, alteramve hebdomadam ex publicis
novis audiemus, quamnam impressionem fecerit Romæ Declaratio Aulæ nostræ.”
266
- 139 -
1750s and 60s. Whereas in western Europe large numbers of Jesuits had been either
imprisoned or expatriated and deported to the Papal States, in Austria and its hereditary lands
the former Jesuits were allowed to stay. As “Weltpriester” (presbyteri saeculares, ‘secular
priests’) they were given pensions from the state. In Latin texts from this period, an ex-Jesuit
like Hell would no longer be referred to as a Pater Reverend(issim)us (‘[Most] Honourable
Father’), but usually as a Dominus Reverend(issim)us (‘[Most] Honourable Mister’). In the
field of learning, although former Jesuit professors of theology and philosophy proper were in
most cases replaced, quite a few professors in other branches of science found themselves in a
position where they could continue their careers; some even ended up as bishops or senior
officials in the state bureaucracy.267
It is sometimes forgotten that the Society of Jesus was never completely extinct. The order
managed to survive in certain parts where the Dominus ac Redemptor noster had little or no
effect. In North American Maryland and Pennsylvania, the just over twenty Jesuit
missionaries of 1773 signed their obedience to the Papal bull. This was almost a mere
formality, however, for at the same time, they retained their posts and kept the former Jesuit
properties, now as private individuals.268 Closer to Hell’s Austria, in the Prussia of Frederick
the Great, all former Jesuit gymnasia as well as the Jesuit University in Vratislavia269 were
taken over by the state. On the other hand, the former Jesuit staff was allowed to continue,
meaning that the education system remained effectively unchanged, to the dismay of Voltaire
amongst others. However, despite being protected by a tolerant ruler because of their skills as
teachers, the Jesuits of Prussian Silesia were secularised in 1776 and those of Varmia (now
northeastern Poland) in 1780.270 By contrast, in the parts of the old Polish Assistancy of the
Society of Jesus that Catherine the Great possessed since the partition of Poland in 1772, the
couple hundred Jesuits who were around were never secularised. Instead, they reorganised
themselves around a new General ‘in diaspora’. Catherine II protected them for the same
267
The doctoral thesis of Hermann Haberzettl 1973 (defended at the University of Vienna in 1970) appears to be
the most comprehensive survey available on the history of Austrian ex-Jesuits. See also Müller 1993 and
Robertson 2009, with references.
268
Schlafly 2006, p. 774.
269
Vratislavia or Wratislavia (L) = Breslau (G), Boroszló (H), Vratislav (Czech), Wrocław (Polish).
270
The attitude of Frederic II of Prussia towards the Jesuits displays a marked difference between norm and
practise. As an anti-Macchiavellian Enlightenment philosopher and a friend and long-term correspondent of
leading representatives of the French Enlightenment, he shared the opinions of his time against the Jesuits and
was especially suspicious of their subversive political and economic power. On the other hand, he attended
theatrical and musical performances of Jesuits in Silesia and respected the Jesuit system of education. In 1772 he
was even asked to be the protector of the Society of Jesus. Even though he rejected this role, Jesuits were
allowed to stay and teach in the Prussian as well as former Polish parts of his realm after the Society was
suppressed in 1773. See the balanced study of Hoffmann 1969; cf. e.g. Van Horn Melton 1988, pp. 171-199.
- 140 -
reason as her Prussian counterpart, seeing that they were essential to the school system in
areas now known as eastern Belarus and Latvia. Here, Jesuit centres were found in the form
of four collegia, in Polack, Viciebsk, Orsha and Daugavpils, and two principal residences, in
Mstislav and Mogilev.271 In the first half of the 1780s, a novitiate as well as a tertianship
(house for the third year of probation) were set in function in Polack, meaning that a complete
program of Jesuit formation was in place. This new situation elicited a certain degree of
immigration of former Jesuits from European states where the Society was still suppressed.272
But even for those who stayed in Central and Western Europe, the survival of the Society in
the East was of symbolic importance. Thus, if the Society of Jesus could no longer support the
former Jesuits of the Austrian Province, some devout ex-Jesuits – Hell among them – looked
to Prussia and especially Russia for comfort. At the same time, new career opportunities for
ex-Jesuits also opened in eastern parts of the Habsburg lands, as a result of reforms of the
education system and foundation of new institutions for higher education in Hungary, Galicia
and Silesia during the 1770s and 1780s. That said, few of those who dreamed of a universal
restitution of the Jesuit order lived to see their dream come true. Not until August 1814
arrived the Papal bull Sollicitudo omnium Ecclesiarum, which restored the Society of Jesus in
all Catholic lands.
In a subsection called “Parallel Lives, Part II” we shall have the occasion to look at the career
paths of some selected ex-Jesuit astronomers from the Austrian Province. In the meanwhile,
the rest of this section will be devoted to a sketch of Hell’s activities in the 1770s and 1780s.
As of 1773, Hell was at the height of his fame in the Republic of Letters. His chief ‘scientific
capital’ had been assembled during his expedition in Scandinavia. The Viennese court
astronomer had delivered substantial contributions to the on-going efforts to calculate the
scale of the solar system, and had even been elected a member of prestigious scientific bodies
in Copenhagen, Trondheim, Stockholm – and above all Göttingen. Apart from that, he was
also a full member of the Accademia delle Scienze in Bologna and a corresponding member of
271
Polack (Belarusian) = Polacia or Polocia (Latin), Polock (French), Polotsk (Russian). Viciebsk (B) =
Vitebscum (L), Witebsk (F), Vitebsk (R). Orsha or Borsha (B) = ? (L), Orsza (F), Orsha (R). Daugavpils
(Latvian) = Duneburgum (L), Dunebourg (F), Dünaburg (German), Dźvinsk (B), Dvinsk (R), Daugpilis
(Lithuanian). Mogilev (B) = ? (L), Mogilew (R), Mohylów (F), and multiple other tranliterations. Mstislav (B) =
? (L), Mstislaw (R), Mśtislaw (F), Mścisław (P), etc.
272
This account is based chiefly on Beauvois 1976; Schafly 2006; and Ludwik Grzebień, “II. Provincia de la
Rusia Blanca (1773-1820)” in the entry on “Rusia” in O’Neill & Domínguez (eds, 2001). I have not had access
to the comprehensive study of Marek Inglot, La Compagnia di Gesù nell’Imperio Russo (1772-1820) e la sua
parte nella restaurazione generale della Compagnia, Rome: Editrice Pontifica Università Gregoriana 1997.
- 141 -
the main scientific academy in the Catholic world, the Académie Royale des Sciences in Paris.
But he was not only an astronomer of international fame, he was also an encyclopædist in the
sense that his research interests encompassed historical research, language studies,
geophysics, meteorology, magnetism, electricity and so forth. Viewed from an internalscientific angle, then, it is not surprising that when the Viennese court decided to form an
Imperial Academy of Sciences, the ex-Jesuit Maximilianus Hell was entrusted with the task of
drawing up a plan of this academy.
Decision to review the possibility of establishing an Academy of Sciences in Vienna was
taken in January 1774. The suppression of the Society of Jesus was probably what triggered
this decision: scientific life in Austria would have to be reorganised anyway. In the spring of
1774 Maximilianus Hell, along with a recently appointed professor of universal and literary
history at the Vienna University, Ignaz Mathes Von Hess (1746-1776) were given orders to
draw up their plans for such an academy. Von Hess opted for an academy consisting of two
branches, a “physikalisch-mathematische Classe” and a “historisch-philosophische Classe”.
The academy, Hess argued, ought to be financed either by issuing calendars, or by imposing a
nation-wide tax on the book trade.273 Hell’s proposal was more modest in scientific terms, but
seemingly more detailed with regard to financial planning. The ex-Jesuit argued that the
Viennese academy, like its older sisters in London and Paris, ought to focus on “physikalischmathematische” disciplines only.274 Proposed salaried members were, besides Hell himself,
the ex-Jesuits Carolus Scherffer and Paulus Makó de Kéreg-Gede (1723-1793) from the
Theresianum as well as three non-Jesuits, among them the prominent chemist and botanist
Nicolaus Josephus Jacquin (1727-1819). According to Hell’s plan, income for the Academy
was to be secured from three sources. First, the Academy was to be granted a certain amount
of money from a special fund that had been created as the Jesuit estates were confiscated;
second, an ambitious reform of the calendar system was to be implemented and the resulting
income be earmarked for the Academy; and third, a certain percentage of the income from the
semi-official newspaper Wiener Diarium was to be bestowed upon the same institution.
Additional money was promised by the Kingdom of Hungary, on condition that one third of
the members of the Academy were to be Hungarians and half of that part Protestants. The first
and the third source at first seemed rather unproblematic, whereas the Hungarian proposal
273
The present account, unless otherwise indicated, is based primarily upon Joseph Feil 1861, supplemented by
Haberzettl 1973, pp. 182-185; Steinmayr 2010e, pp. 267-270 and relevant parts of Hell’s correspondence.
274
To be more precise, the Viennese academy of Hell’s proposal was intended to cover “astronomy, geometry,
mechanics, physics, botany, anatomy and chemistry” (according to Haberzettl 1973, p. 184).
- 142 -
was in any case insufficient to finance the entire Academy. It was the second and probably
most substantial source of income, the calendars, that in the end toppled the entire project.
Throughout the early modern period, calendars (almanacs) were ‘big business’. You needed a
privilegium to be allowed to publish them. In Vienna, these privilegia were bought from the
state and issued at ten-year intervals. But from now on, the court astronomer proposed, no
new privilegia should be issued without the consent of the Calendar Commision, whose
director was to remain none other than Maximilianus Hell. Better control with the contents of
the calendars was to be one positive outcome of this arrangement – considerable income for
the Academy, another. This deal would not be unique in eighteenth-century Europe. In
Sweden, Hell’s colleagues had secured income for the Academy of Sciences in Stockholm in
exactly the same manner.275 However, given the large sums involved in the trade of calendars,
Hell was soon up against mighty forces. The publisher of the Ephemerides Astronomicae of
Hell, Joannes Thomas de Trattner (1719-1798), was also the publisher of several other
calendars throughout the Habsburg lands. Arguably, he was the most successful book dealer
in this period of Austrian history.276 His intervention in Hell’s academy plans is described in
various sources. In a letter to Weiss in Tyrnavia, dated Vienna 27 January 1775, Hell
apologises that the Ephemerides for that year had been delayed. The cause for the delay,
however, was not his responsibility:277
The Ephemerides, which were finished at the end of the year, I have not yet
been able to acquire from Trattner despite repeated requests. I suspect that he
has deliberately chosen to cause me this bother because he has learnt of the
Imperial decree, by which all the calendars that used to be printed throughout
the hereditary lands have now been earmarked to finance the Academy of
Sciences that is to be established here in Vienna. In this way, he has been
bereaved of an income of thousands of florints. As soon as I receive these
Ephemerides, I will send a copy to my Highly Honourable Mister Colleague
[i.e., Weiss] in Tyrnavia.
275
Lindroth 1967, vol. I:1, pp. 102-110.
See for example Frank & Frimmel 2008, pp. 198-200.
277
Hell to Weiss in Tyrnavia, dated Vienna 27 January 1775 (Vargha priv.): “Ephemerides, quæ in fine anni
paratæ erant, ipse à Trattnero ad iteratas petitiones nondum obtinere potui; suspicor hanc mihi molestiam creare
velle, cum intellexerit Decreto Cæsareo calendaria per omnes Ditiones hæreditarias imprimi solita, Academiæ
scientiarum hic Viennæ erigendæ pro fundo assignata esse, atque hac de Causa aliquot millium florenorum
proventum, sibi ademptum esse; ut primum autem Ephemerides has obtinuero, Exemplar pro more Adm. R. D.
Collegæ Tyrnaviam mittam.”
276
- 143 -
Unfortunately for Hell, Trattner did not limit himself to cause this sort of bother. Referring to
the “poor book dealers”, Maria Theresa on 25 November 1775 signed the following statement
in her own hand:278
I couldn’t possibly decide to set up an accademie des scienses [sic] with three
ex-Jesuits and one professor of chemistry, however worthy; we should be a
laughing-stock in the world […]. I find the Abbé Hell not strong enough; an
accademie that is worse than the already existing ones would be worth neither
the costs nor the effort.
The story did not end there. In April 1776, after more than two years of lobbying, Hell
received the final blow: there was to be no Austrian Academy of Sciences. The Empress
renewed the privilegia of the principal book dealers, among them the highly prosperous
Trattner. Hell was at the same time allowed to publish his own calendars. Already in 1774 he
had issued his first German-language almanac: soon he produced an almanac for the knightly
order, a “Physikalischer Almanach”, a chronological almanac, an almanac for children and an
almanac with riddles.279 Sales were slow, however, and faced up with the competition of the
likes of Trattner he had no chance of acquiring the income needed to facilitate an Academy.
In his pioneering study of the failure to establish a Viennese Academy of Sciences during the
realm of Maria Theresa, Joseph Feil explains that it was Trattner who, during an audience,
had moved the Empress to reject the idea of an Academy. Trattner claimed that bankruptcy
threatened not only himself and his business, but even all his creditors, in case the calendar
privilegia were not renewed. In short, he “wailed and cried” and managed to persuade the
Empress to “sacrifice to this man the promising prospect of an Academy and the benefits for
the common good that were likely to result thereof”.280 This story is confirmed by a Danish
theology student who visited Vienna a couple of years later, Andreas Christian Hviid (17491788).
278
The original according to Feil 1861, p. 382: “ohnmöglich kunte mich resolvirn eine accademie des scienses
anzufangen mit 3 exjesuiten und ein zwar wackerm professor der chemie wir wurden lächerlich in der welt […].
abbée hell finde nicht stark genug was schlechters als andere schonn existirende accademieen lohnte weder deren
kosten noch mühe”. The first part of the translation is quoted from Evans 2006, p. 50, the second part is by the
author of this thesis.
279
Sommervogel 1893, p. 256, quoting “Berisch, p. 96-98”. Probably Die Wiener Autoren: Ein Beitrag zum
gelehrten Deutschland, by Heinrich Wolfgang Behrisch, Preßburg: Löwe, 1784, 272 pp. I have not had access to
that work, nor to any of the popular almanacs in question.
280
Feil 1861, p. 383: “Er [i.e., Trattner] drang vor die Kaiserin, gab seinen und seiner Gläubiger Ruin vor, wenn
er seinen Kalenderverlag verlöre […], lärmte und flehte: und die Kaiserin […] liess sich gewinnen und opferte
diesem Manne die glücklichen Aussichten einer Akademie und das daraus zu fliessende Beste auf”.
- 144 -
Hviid visited Vienna from 27 October 1778 to 20 January 1779, with the aim of transcribing
ancient manuscripts. His travel diary, which he later edited for publishing, is crammed with
detailed information not only on archives and libraries, but also on the intellectual élite of the
Habsburg capital. Hviid met Father Hell on several occasions, both in the home of the highly
sociable Papal nuntius (or nuncio, ‘ambassador’) Guiseppe Garampi (1725-1792) and in the
public observatory itself. Despite their diverging views on religion and politics – Hviid was a
Protestant and highly supportive of Enlightenment ideas – Hviid describes Hell in positive
terms. Hviid was allowed to look through Hell’s works in progress on the Expeditio litteraria
and heard him praise Danish science. An entry in the diary also includes a rumour on the
failed efforts to establish an Academy of Sciences in Vienna:281
Professor…..tells me that Hell a few years ago was given orders to draw up a
plan for the establishment of an Academy of Sciences in Vienna. In it, physics,
astronomy and mathematics were to be included, just like in the English and
French academies. He did draw up this plan, and suggested for the funds of the
Society [i.e., the Academy] the income from the almanacs, which in the first
year probably had run to some 40,000 Reichstaler [florints], but which would
possibly increase to an annual 88,000 in the future. A publisher named Trattner
was publishing the almanacs of the entire Monarchy. He had access to the
Empress, and having heard rumours of the Society, he demanded an audience at
her place. Upon entering the chamber, he fell to his knees before the portrait of
Emperor Francis [Maria Theresa’s late husband], which was hanging there on
the wall, wailed to it as if to the living Emperor, telling him that he was going to
lose his monopoly and all his income be diverted for physics and heresy. The
Empress thereupon rejected Hell’s plan.
Hviid also tells us something that Feil mentions only in passing, that Maximilianus Hell “ten
years earlier” (about the year 1764 according to Feil) had argued that an Academy of Sciences
ought to be established in Vienna. That plan had been rejected by an unnamed minister on the
very same day that the Empress was to sign it. The reason for that refusal had been that the
minister had insisted that the government should appoint the members of the Academy,
281
Hviid 2005, p. 370 (entry on 21 November 1778): “Professor….fortæller mig, at Hell for faa Aar siden havde
faaet Befaling at giøre en Plan til et Videnskabers Akademie for Wien, hvori man skulde arbeide i Physiken,
Astronomien og Mathematiken, ligesom i det Engelske og Franske. Han havde og udarbeidet denne Plan, og
foreslaaet til Selskabets Fond Indkomsterne af alle Almanakkerne, som i det første Aar nok havde beløbet sig til
40,000 Rdlr., og siden maaske vilde naae til 88,000. En Boghandler Trattner, havde hele Monarkiets Almanakker
at trykke. Denne havde Adgang til Keiserinden, og da han hørte Rygter om Selskabet, forlangde han Audients
hos hende. Ved Indtrædelsen i Gemakket, falder han paa Knæ for Keiser Frantses Portrait, som hængde paa
Væggen, klager for det, som for den levende Keiser, at nu skulde han miste sit Monopolium, og Indkomsterne
deraf anvendes til Physik og Irreligion, hvorpaa Keiserinden forkastede Hells Plan.” The manuscript version of
Hviid’s diary has not survived. Several names of persons are deliberately left out in the published version of
1787, as here. See the introduction of Michael Harbsmeier and Morten Petersen to their annotated edition of
Hviid’s text (Harbsmeier & Petersen 2005).
- 145 -
something Hell wisely refused.282 “On the other hand”, Hviid presumes, “there may have been
a hint of Jesuitism involved. For if the first members of the Academy came from that
Company [i.e., the Society of Jesus], then the rest were likely to be selected from the same
regiment as well”.283 Following Hviid, one may interpret Hell’s plan of 1774/75 as, at least in
part, an attempt to retain the Jesuit heritage. In his letters to Jean Bernoulli III in Berlin284 and
to Weiss in Tyrnavia from this period, Hell emphasises that parts of the funds of the Academy
were to be used to preserve the Jesuit observatories in Graecium, Vienna and Prague, whose
directors were going to be members of the Academy as well. In her verdict of November
1775, Maria Theresa at least hinted to the presence of too many Jesuits in the Academy as
problematic. The political climate had changed. It did not work any longer, to appeal to the
alleged strengths of Jesuit science. Other networks had emerged and new alliances were being
forged with the political leaders.
Freemasonry represents one such network overtly opposing the Jesuit order. The freemasons,
or muratori libri, despite repeated condemnations from the Pope (in 1738 and 1751) gained a
foothold in Catholic Vienna in the early 1740s. From there freemasonry spread through other
urban centres of Central Europe. The Masonic lodges were partly military, partly civil. Their
creeds were strongly influenced by Protestantism and Enlightenment ideals, but as laws of
tolerance started to come in effect in the 1770s and 1780s, they also proved to have a wide
appeal among Catholics. As Hermann Haberzettl, historian of the ex-Jesuits of Austria in the
last quarter of the eighteenth century puts it, freemasonry in essence had three aims:
“enhancing the general level of education, religious tolerance, appeasement of misery”. 285 All
three aims were in harmony with the Enlightenment ideals as promoted by Joseph II. In 1781,
now fully acknowledged by the court, a group of Freemasons established a high-profiled
lodge “Zur wahren Eintracht” (‘For true Unity’) in Vienna. To this group, even a small group
of ex-Jesuits joined in. It was soon to become the dominant civil lodge in the Austrian capital,
282
Hviid 2005, p. 370; Feil 1861, pp. 372-373 (“ums Jahr 1764”).
Hviid 2005, p. 370: “Men paa den anden Side stak der maaskee ogsaa lidt Jesuitisme derunder; thi vare de
første Medlemmer af dette Compagnie, bleve nok ogsaa de øvrige valgte af samme Regiment”.
284
Jean (Johann) Bernoulli III (1744-1807), Astronomer Royal and director of the Berlin observatory since 1764,
had travelled across western Europe and England in the years 1768-69, and his Lettres Astronomiques (1771a)
were – and still are – used as a standard work of reference for the state of astronomy in France, Britain, and
German-speaking countries anno 1769. In the 1770s, he published the series Recueil pour les Astronomes and
Nouvelles Litteraires des divers pays, a kind of annotated bibliography with surveys of ongoing activities of
relevance to astronomy in every part of the world; his Lettres sur differens sujets (1777c) on a journey through
central and southern Europe are equally useful. He was obviously an important contact for Maximilianus Hell in
his attempts to win recognition in this period. They seem never to have met personally, however.
285
Haberzettl 1973, pp. 48-56, here p. 48: “Hebung der allgemeinen Bildung, religiöse Toleranz, Linderung der
Not”.
283
- 146 -
in no small measure thanks to the charismatic leadership of Ignatius a Born, or Ignaz Edler
von Born (1742-1791). His career merits some consideration.
The son of a “Stadthauptmann” (appointed major) in Alba Julia286 in Transylvania that had
been known as a promoter of gold mining in that region, Ignatius a Born was to pursue a
career in mineralogy, chemistry and mining. After an initial post in Prague, where he became
the founding father of a private Society of Sciences in 1770, Born came to Vienna in 1776 for
the task of rearranging the “Naturaliencabinett” of the Empress.287 Three years later, he
became a senior official of the bureaucracy overseeing the mining industry.288 In 1782, Born
joined the lodge Zur wahren Eintracht with his wide circle of friends. He soon became a
leader of the lodge and ultimately (1784) even the “Großsekretär” (main secretary) of the
Austrian lodges. Seeing itself as a sort of “substitute academy”, Zur wahren Eintracht founded
a scientific journal (Physikalische Arbeiten der einträchtigen Freunde, Vienna 1784-85) and
promoted a wide range of other scientific, political and belletristic activities. In science, Born
is primarily remembered for his invention of an improved method for amalgating silver
(1784) and as the initiator of the above-mentioned international gathering for metallurgists,
miners and natural historians in Glashütte, not far from Hell’s hometown Schemnicium
(1786). In matters of religion and culture, however, Ignatius a Born is known as a satirist and
a champion of anti-clerical views. He is claimed by many to be the model for the character
Sarastro in Schickaneder’s and Mozart’s Zauberflöte (‘Magic Flute’, 1791).
Born had in fact been a member of the Jesuit order for sixteen months, in 1759/60, but left the
Society before he finished his novitiate. His main work as an anticlerical satirist was issued in
1783 under the pseudonym Joannes Physiophilus, with the title Specimen Monachologiae,
methodo Linnaeano, tabulis tribus aeneis illustratum (also published in German and French,
and in English as ‘John Physiophilus’s Specimen of the Natural History of the Various Orders
of Monks, after the Manner of the Linnæan System’).289 The book is jokingly cast as an
academic treatise of natural history, in which the various monks are distributed in their
species and described according to Linnæan terminology as though they were specimens of
natural history. Thus, the genus of the monk is in general terms defined as an “animal” that is
286
Alba Julia (L) = Weissenburg or Karlsburg (G), Gyulafehérvár or Károlyfehérvar (H), Alba Iulia (R).
The Naturaliencabinett was a predecessor of the present Naturhistorisches Museum.
288
In German: “Hofrat(h) bei der Hofkammer im Münz- und Bergwesen”.
289
The Latin original is available on Google Books, see [Born] 1783. Most researchers identify the pseudonym
Joannes Physiophilus with Ignatius a Born. See however, Evans 2006, p. 46 footnote 35.
287
- 147 -
“anthropomorph, hooded, wailing at night, thirsty.” Moreover, the body of the monk is “twofooted, erect, with a back which is curved inwards, a head which is flattened from above,
always hooded and clothed on all sides, except for certain species whose head, feet, ass and
hands are nude.”290 Luckily for the Society of Jesus, this order had ceased to exist and was
spared description in Born’s merciless satire. The first German edition of the work, this time
jokingly attributed to an “Ignaz Loyola Kuttenpeitscher”, sold two thousand copies in three
weeks only.291
Ignatius a Born is also known to have published a satire aimed directly at Father Hell, the socalled Telescopium Christiano-Hellianum. Cast as a call for subscriptions modelled upon
Hell’s advertisement for the Expeditio litteraria, this satire bears the false signature of
Maximilianus Hell.292 Printed leaflets were circulating in Vienna at least by the autumn of
1784. In 1786, the entire call for subscriptions was even included in the Staats-Anzeigen, a
serious journal edited by the Göttingen historian August Ludwig Schlözer. In this spurious
call for subscriptions, Hell is portrayed as a sworn enemy of the freemasons, and the full title
of his work is given as293
The Christian-Hellian Telescope, or Macro- and Microscopic Observations on
the Heresy and Goal of the Freemasons by Honourable Father Maximilianus
Hell of the Society of Jesus [sic], Made Upon His Return and Repentance from
Speculations Concerning Matters Relating to Venus.
The work was supposed to be published by the publisher “of our Society, in three volumes,
although not in folio, but, as befits Christian modesty, in octavo”.294 Furthermore, the volumes
were to be published on the day of Saint Xavier in the year 1784, on the day of Saint Aloysius
in the year after and on the day of Saint Ignatius in 1786. Subscriptions were open “in all
290
[Born] 1783, p. [17]: “MONACHUS. // Definitio. Animal antropomorphum; cucullatum, noctu ejulans;
sitiens. // Descriptio. Corpus Monachi bipes, erectum, dorso incurvato, capite depresso, semper cucullatum &
undequaque vestitum, si in speciebus quibusdam caput, pedes, anum, manusque nudas excipias.”
291
Robertson 2009, p. 139.
292
Numerous authors have taken this signature on face value, and discussed the contents of the call for
subscriptions as though the text had been written by Father Hell (see for example Pinzger 1920).
293
[Born] 1786, p. 230: “Inscribitur hoc opus Telescopium christiano-Hellianum, seu R. P. Maxim. HELL, E.
S. J. a Speculatione rerum circa Venerem reducis & resipiscentis, OBSERVATIONES Macro- & Microscopicae,
de Haeresi & Fine Franco-Muratoriorum.” One notes the use of the designations R. P. … e S. J. (“Honourable
Father … of the Society of Jesus”), a man clinging to his old titles despite the decree of the Pope!
294
Ibid.: “Scriptum hoc e Bibliopolio Augustano Societatis nostrae prodibit in Tomis III, at non in folio, sed, ut
christianae conueniat modestiae, in 8vo.”
- 148 -
Catholic cities and provinces, at the Honourable Father Preachers’ and ex-Jesuit
Missionaries’”.295
The reference to Hell as “Honourable Father … of the Society of Jesus”, the naming of
canonised representatives of the same Society (Xavier, Aloysius and Ignatius Loyola), the
supposed existence of a Jesuit press and even of ex-Jesuit missionaries – all was neatly
phrased in order to nail the Viennese court astronomer as a spearhead of anti-tolerant schemes
against the freemasons. Other attacks on Hell’s reputation came in newspapers and other
ephemeral publications such as the Oesterreichische Biedermanns-Chronik, Wienerische
Kirchenzeitung, Briefe aus dem Himmel and Phantasten- und Prediger-Almanach in the mid1780s. In one of these series, he was even listed as having died – morally speaking – in the
year 1773, in the midst of his “struggle for the good cause”.296 Freedom of press took its toll
on the ex-Jesuit.
A visitor to Vienna in the autumn of 1784, the German-speaking Danish citizen Friedrich
Münter (1761-1830) has left a detailed diary that can be compared to the testimony of Hviid
from six years earlier. Like Hviid, Münter was on a study trip, transcribing old manuscripts
and visiting libraries and archives. Unlike Hviid, however, Münter was a freemason, and on
the very day of his arrival in Vienna, he visited Ignatius a Born. In fact, during his seven
weeks in the Austrian capital (from 30 August to 20 October 1784), Münter paid visits to the
Born family virtually every day. He also visited the papal nuntius, Garampi, whom he appears
to have sympathised with despite his papal allegiance. It was through Garampi that Münter
was introduced to Father Hell, “a thin, deteriorated little man, in whom the sly Jesuit is at the
same time before one’s eyes”.297 Münter paid only three visits to him, but heard from various
sources enough sensational rumours about this famous ex-Jesuits to fill several pages of his
diary.
According to Münter, the Society of Jesus was never really suppressed. It still prospered not
only in Russia, but even in the Austrian lands, where there were supposed to exist four large
prelatures – in Oenipontum, Leopolis, Vienna and a fourth (unnamed) place. The Jesuits were
295
[Born] 1786, p. 231: “Acceptabuntur autem Subscriptiones in omnibus catholicis urbibus & provinciis, apud
RR. PP. Concionatores & Missionarios Exjesuitas.”
296
See Steinmayr 2010e, esp. pp. 271-273, here p. 272.
297
Münter, Tagebuch 1937, p. 62 (entry 7 September 1784): “einen magern verfallenen kleinen Mann, dem man
aber den pfiffigen Jesuiten gleich ansieht”.
- 149 -
said to hold secret nocturnal meetings in Vienna, over which Hell presided as the Superior, or
“Grosmeister”.298 Moreover, the court astronomer allegedly cultivated close contacts with the
Jesuit order in Russia and profited from support from a network of Jesuit-friendly bishops like
the one in Agria in Hungary (see below). Throughout, Münter characterises Hell as an
extremely dishonest man, who complained about “die unglaubigen Zeiten” (‘this age of no
faith’) and saw little value in the freedom of the press, which he preferred to call
“Zügellosigkeit” (‘recklessness’).299 In sum, Hell was one of those300
elected munitions of God, fighting to prevent the creed of the Jesuits to become
extinct, and he really devotes himself with all his might in this struggle. A substantial part of the pamphlets directed against the Emperor passes through his
hands. He either writes them himself, or orders others to write them, and
thereafter passes them on to his beastly-horned [i.e., Satanic] colleague, who
immediately submits them to be printed in the press of the Order.
Both Münter and Born were not only Freemasons, they were even members of the so-called
illuminati (“Illuminaten”), a secretive order of brothers who were driving forces of what some
scholars describe as the “counter-counter-Reformation” in German-speaking parts of
Europe.301 In the face of adversaries like these, it is little wonder that Maximilianus Hell was
searching for new alliances. Not all was broken, though, and while many of the rumours
entered in Münter’s diary are no doubt exaggerations, they are in part confirmed by Hell
himself in his preserved correspondence with the historian and fellow ex-Jesuit Georgius Pray
from the years 1781-82.302 Moreover, Hell’s contacts with several conservative bishops are
well documented. One particular contact merits special consideration.
298
Münter 1937, pp. 83-85 (entries on 26 and 27 September 1784), here p. 85.
Münter 1937, p. 77 (entry on 23 September 1784).
300
Münter 1937, pp. 65-66 (entry on 11 September 1784): “[…] die Auserwälten Rüstzeuge Gottes, die Lehre
der Jesuiten nicht aussterben zu lassen, u. er strebt auch pro viribus darnach. ein grosser Theil der gegen den
Kaiser gerichteten Schriften geht durch seine Hände. er schreibt sie entweder selbst, oder lässt sie schreiben, und
dann schickt er sie zu seinem theuererkohrnen Collegen, der sie gleich der Presse in der Ordensdrukerey giebt.”
301
Amongst the output of literature of a more or less academic nature on the illuminati, those who read
Norwegian are advised to consult Sørensen 2007.
302
Particularly intriguing is a letter from Hell to Pray in Buda, dated Vienna 27 June 1782 (EL Budap). Hell here
explains that he has been kept busy by a “a lot of negotiations” with the Pope when he visited Vienna earlier in
that year, and since then by partly writing, partly advicing others to write, partly facilitating the publication and
distribution of numerous pamphlets in answer to the “deluge of writings directed against the Pope, the Church,
the Ecclesiasts, the faithful, the good morale etc. that flood our city and its surroundings, even the very Empire”
= “Præsentia Pontificis, quocum mihi plurima agenda erant, tum colluvies libellorum contra Papam, Ecclesiam,
Ecclesiasticos, Religiosos, bonos mores etc: urbem nostram Viciniamque, imò ipsum Jmperium inundans”.
Moreover, Hell adds that “I say nothing about the things I am secretely doing here in Vienna for the sake of
protecting the Religion, things I do all the more safely because no one will suspect that it is an astronomer who is
treating theological and ecclesiastic subjects” = “taceo illa, quæ hic Viennæ pro servanda Religione secretissime
ago, id quod securius facio, cum nemini suspicio oriri possit, Astronomum esse, qui Theologica, et Ecclesiastica
tractet.”
299
- 150 -
Numerous letters from Hell to the bishop of Agria, the nobleman Carolus Eszterházy de
Galantha (1725-1799) are preserved. This bishop had in 1762 sent a student, Matthaeus
Balajthij (1731-post 1779),303 to Hell in Vienna to receive some rudimentary training in
astronomy. Balajthij soon after became a professor of mathematics in the gymnasium of
Agria. After the suppression of the Society of Jesus, Eszterházy attempted to raise this
institution to university level. To this end he began sumptuous construction works, including
the construction of an observatory. Late in the year 1774, he sent another student, Joannes
Madarassy (1743-1814) to Hell to receive a full formation as an astronomer. Madarassy was
to stay at Hell’s place for several years to come. Eszterházy also asked the Imperial
Astronomer to provide for him the best available instruments from England, and to come and
inspect the construction site in Agria in order to give instructions face-to-face.304 In his
correspondence with the bishop, Hell expresses joy for this occasion to serve his “Fatherland”
(Patria), promises to make the name of Eszterházy known throughout the world of learning
and to spare no effort in ordering the instruments the bishop asks for.
In the spring of 1776, Hell set forth to Agria along with Madarassy. Their journey lasted just
over five weeks, but was given ample space in the Ephemerides Astronomicae for the year
1777. Here, Hell presents a detailed travel account, which is conspicuous for the nature of the
extra-scientific material it includes. Not surprisingly, the Bishop of Agria is praised as a
patron of the sciences. But there is more to the travel account than that. While travelling back
and forth, Hell describes a series of villages and urban centres and depicts a country replete
with distinguished scholars. In Tyrnavia, he meets his colleague Weiss; in the village Szered,
he spends some time at an inn built by Franciscus Eszterházy de Galantha, brother of the
bishop of Agria, and draws a meridian line on the floor in the presence of the keeper of the
inn, “a distinguished man, who is interested in mathematics”; in Buda, he visits his former
travel companion Joannes Sajnovics, now a professor of mathematics in this Metropolis
303
Also spelled Balajthi, Balaithi, etc. See Katona 1809, pp. 935-936.
Hell to Bishop Eszterhazy in Agria, dated Vienna 25 November 1755; 22 August 1755; 23 April 1776
(Vargha priv.). Madarassy to Bishop Eszterhazy in Agria, dated Vienna 27 January 1776; 3 March 1776; 6 April
1776 (Vargha priv.). While Balajthij was in Vienna in 1762, some “mathematical and physical” instruments
were also ordered, but these were hardly as costly as the astronomical instruments Bishop Eszterházy asked for
in 1776 (Hell to Bishop Eszterházy in Agria, dated Vienna 21 September 1762; 24 October 1762. Balajthij to
Bishop Eszterházy in Agria, dated Vienna 21 [September] 1762 – all letters from Vargha’s private archive).
304
- 151 -
Ungariae; and so forth.305 Agria is portrayed as a virtual ‘centre of advanced science’, the
bishop himself as a devout Christian with a Jesuit-like mode of thinking, and the journey as a
whole as having been undertaken “for the greater glory of God”. 306 In Hell’s travel account,
Hungary is a landscape peopled exclusively by Jesuit-friendly Catholics, where one
particularly eminent patron is building an observatory that, when fully equipped, “I venture to
declare, will no doubt become the most splendid observatory in entire Europe” (sic).307
Bishop Eszterházy got his splendid observatory, which survives intact to this day. 308
Madarassy finished his training at Hell’s observatory in Vienna in 1778 and thereafter served
as the astronomer of Agria, but Eszterházy’s plans of establishing a university were toppled
by a Ratio Educationis, or ‘General Law of Hungarian Education’, that was issued by the
court of Vienna shortly after Hell undertook his Hungarian tour. Already in 1776 it was
decreed that in the entire Kingdom of Hungary there was to be only one university, in addition
to five academiae (“Hochschulen”), in Jaurinum, Varadinum,309 Cassovia, Zagrabia and a
fifth place in the Cisdanubian region. Cassovia thereby lost its university status, while the
status of Tyrnavia was for a while uncertain. The year after, however, it was decided that the
Tyrnavian university was to move to Buda, and the compounds of Tyrnavia host a
“Hochschule” only. Agria was to remain a gymnasium, or lycée, of the same status as
numerous others across Hungary.310 Hell remained in close contact with Bishop Eszterházy,
however, and after their personal meeting in Agria in 1776, their correspondence turned more
and more towards religious matters. Among the subjects discussed in their letters was the
status of the German language.
305
Hell, “Observationes Astronomicæ Latitudinum Geographicarum, sive Elevationum Poli, Locorum
quorumdam Ungariæ, factæ 1776” 1776a, quotation from p. 167: “Caupo, Vir egregius, & rerum
mathematicarum curiosus”.
306
Hell 1776a, espec. p. 289: “Atque hoc modo iter meum […] ad Dei gloriam majorem perfectum est” and pp.
279-280, where the Bishop looks on as Hell and the rest of his team draws the meridian line of his observatory,
and while doing so “contemplates, no doubt, in his pious mind those words of David, the Heavens will tell of the
glory of God, and the firmament announce the works of His hands as well as that holy dictum of Divine Ignatius
Loyola, who having observed the stars at night said, O how the dirty the Earth appears, as I look at the sky.” =
“illud, haud dubie, Davidis pia mente revolvens: Cœli enarrant Gloriam Dei, & opera manuum ejus annunciat
firmamentum; atque etiam illud Divi Ignatii Loyolæ, cœlum stellatum sæpius suspicientis sancte dictum: Quam
sordet mihi tellus, dum Cœlum aspicio”. Ignatius Loyola was a founding father of the Society of Jesus, ‘For the
Greater Glory of God’ its motto.
307
Hell 1776a, p. 273: “hanc [scil. speculam] præcipuam totius Europæ futuram absque dubio pronunciare
audeo”.
308
See for example the articles by Norbert Weyss 1986a, 1986b and 1987.
309
Varadinum (L) = Grosswardein (G), Nagyvárad (H), Oradea (R).
310
See for example Katona 1809, pp. 865-868 & 886-880.
- 152 -
In preceding sections, it has been explained that Maximilianus Hell came from a Germanspeaking family. He nonetheless reckoned himself as a Hungarus, and supported the proMagyar (albeit not pro-Hungarian Guard) sentiments that Sajnovics gave voice to in the
Demonstratio. Latin remained, however, his most cherished language. It represented not only
the language of the Catholic church, it was also a universal language of the sciences and a
lingua franca of his patria, Hungary. When Balajthij came to Vienna in the early 1760s, Hell
explains to the bishop that he is making sure his student learns French, “which is of utmost
importance for a mathematician”.311 In the mid 1770s, Hell reports that Madarassy learns
French with ease, but struggles to learn German. In the end, Madarassy asked the bishop for
money to move out of Hell’s apartment and hire a room in a private home so that he could
speak the language on a daily basis.312 However, it was not science that necessitated his
acquisition of German, it was politics.
The likes of chancellor Kaunitz and the co-ruler Joseph II found Latin inadequate for the
administration of a modern country, and argued in favour of imposing German as the official
language of the Kingdom of Hungary. Decrees issued in 1774, and especially the Ratio
educationis of 1777, contain paragraphs on the desirability of increased teaching of the
German language in the schools of Hungary.313 But German was not only favoured in lowerlevel schools, it was ultimately to replace Latin as the compulsory language of teaching at the
University of Vienna in 1783. The year after, in April 1784 to be quite specific, Joseph issued
his infamous German language edict, making German the official language of the Kingdom of
Hungary as well. The argument was utilitarian, for the administrative language of Hungary –
Latin – had by then become “one that the nation does not even understand”.314 Whereas
Romanian and Slavic languages were spoken alongside, or instead of, Magyar in certain parts
of the Kingdom, knowledge of German was widespread throughout. Thus, the only feasible
alternative for a common administrative language was German, the Emperor argued. Joseph
had already issued several decrees on Hungarian matters, and some of these, for example his
efforts to stifle the rights of the nobility, had found support in at least some camps. The
German language edict, however, caused a universal outcry.
311
Hell to Bishop Eszterházy in Agria, dated Vienna 24 October 1762 (Vargha priv.): “sedulo mathesi, Physicæ,
et linguæ gallicæ, quæ mathematico summe necessaria est, Studebat [scil. Balajthij]” (no mention of German!).
312
Hell to Eszterházy in Agria, dated Vienna 22 August 1775 and 1 July 1776; Madarassy to Eszterházy, dated
Vienna 2 April 1776 (Vargha priv.).
313
See for example Katona 1809, pp. 831-837.
314
Joseph in the German language edict, quoted after Balázs 1997, p. 206.
- 153 -
It would be far beyond the scope of this thesis to investigate the various twists and turns of
Habsburg politics in the Josephine decade. Suffice to say that bishop Eszterházy proved to be
a stout opponent against the reforms of Vienna.315 Hell for his part did not welcome the
increased use of the German language. Despite his own fluency in German, he found it
inadequate for the advancement of ‘universal science’. To Hviid in 1778, he expressed regrets
that the “Danes always wrote in Danish; this was an impediment to our scientific image
abroad […]. We [i.e., the Danes] should write more in Latin, he argued, or at least in French,
which is also a universal language.”316 Hell’s knowledge of French was passive, Hviid tells
us, for during dinners at Garampi’s, he spoke “kitchen Latin” only, and that “in an unusual
rapidity”, since “this erudite does not speak French”.317 Even so, it was French, not German,
that he advocated in case Latin should be dropped.
But Hell’s support of Latin (and to some extent French) against German was not only related
to his concerns for a lingua franca of the Republic of Letters and of his homeland, Hungary.
When he wished to repress the use of German and bring back Latin at university level, he did
so also for religious reasons.
After the accession of Leopold II early in the year 1790, Hell saw new opportunities for
Agria. In letters to bishop Eszterházy, he expresses hopes that the university of Hungary,
which has “been on the move for so long” (having moved from Tyrnavia to Buda in 1777 it
was again moved, across the Danube to Pest in 1784), should now – at last – find a “safe and
permanent haven” in Agria.318 The ex-Jesuit also involved himself in a new edition of the old
University Statutes of Vienna, in order to convince the policy makers of the need for a purely
Catholic university system.319 In brief, he hopes to320
315
For the bigger picture of Hungarian resistance towards the policies of Vienna, and the role of Hungarian
bishops in particular, see Bahlcke 2005.
316
Hviid 2005, p. 369: “Han [i.e., Hell] klagede over at de Danske stedse skreve Dansk; det var en stor Hinder
for vor litterære Renome blant Fremmede […]. Vi burde skrive mer paa Latin, meente han, eller i det mindste
paa Fransk, hvilket ogsaa er et Universal-Sprog.”
317
Hviid 2005, pp. 401-402 (entry 6 December 1778): “Denne Lærde talede idelig Latin, thi Fransk taler han
ikke.” And: “alt dette skede paa Kykken-Latin, som han taler med en ualmindelig Hurtighed.”
318
Hell to Bishop Eszterházy in Agria, dated Vienna 30 October 1790 (Vargha priv.).
319
According to Sommevogel 1893, p. 257 the full title of the edition was Diplomata, Bullae, Privilegia,
Libertates, Immunitates, Constitutiones, et Statuta celeberrimae Universitatis Vindobonensis ab an. 1634.
primae suae institutionis ad an. 1689. quo studio theologico aucta, et completa florebat: excerpta ex lib. II.
Commentariorum viri cl. Petri Lambecii. Editio tertia, idiomate latino et teutonico, cum notis praesertim
Lambeccianis (Vienna 1791). In a copy that Paul Shore has had access to, an autograph letter was pasted
between pages 167 and 168, in which Hell “reveals his contempt for Protestant education, calling Protestant
universities ‘pseudo-Universities’ that ‘corrupt students’ minds’” (Shore 2007, p. 105). This resembles the
contents of Hell’s letters to Eszterházy from 1790/91.
- 154 -
restore the studies at the universities of our hereditary realms, which now lie
with their backs broken, to their ancient status and spirit in the same manner as
the university studies were restored during the reign of the pious Emperor
Ferdinand II, at first in Vienna in the year 1623, and thereafter in all the cities of
the Austrian hereditary realms.
Finally, in a particularly long and bitter letter to the bishop, Hell laments over the dissolution
of the Society of Jesus, and what he calls the seminaria Antichristi (‘seminars of Antichrist’)
that had replaced the theology studies at the university since the Jesuit professors were
removed from their posts. As a result of the implementation of compulsory teaching in
German, knowledge of Latin had seen such a rapid decline among university students that
even mass at the University Church was now held in the vernacular. As a result, young
women attended, and flirted overtly with the (male) students. The fair sex would not have
been present, Hell argues, if only the masses had been celebrated in Latin as they used to be in
the ‘good old days’ before the suppression of the Society of Jesus.321
In the elderly Hell’s arguments for the preservation (or restoration) of Latin, his old loyalties
ran together. As a Hungarus, he wished to see Latin prevail as the lingua franca of his
multiethnic fatherland. As a partisan of the conservative forces of the Catholic church, he
savoured a glorious past in which there existed a single, universal language for the servants of
God. As a representative of the Republic of Letters, he saw the benefits of the Latin language
for communication across linguistic and political boundaries. In this sense, he was indeed
facing backwards. But he was also a pragmatic.
Hell’s promotion of the Magyar language has been discussed in Section I.2.3 above. Given his
position as a mentor, and almost even a ‘censor’, of Sajnovics’ Demonstratio, certain
formulations are worth pointing to. The Sámi dialect, with its rich and to a large extent
protected vocabulary thanks to its isolation in the High North, ought to be used to enrich the
Hungarian language, it is argued.322 Furthermore, the Demonstratio claims that Hungarian
(and Lappish) is a language that is inferior to no other language, even superior to many others
320
Hell to Bishop Eszterházy in Agria, dated Vienna 1 November 1790 (Vargha priv.): “[…] si inquam fructum
tulerit speratum, ut studia Universitatum in Regnis nostris hæreditariis penitus prostrata, ad statum, et spiritum
primævum restaurentur eo modo, quo sub pio Jmperatore Ferdinando II anno 1623 restaurata fuere Viennæ, et
subinde in aliis Urbibus Regnorum hæreditariorum Austriæ.”
321
Hell to Bishop Eszterházy in Agria, dated Vienna 11 November 1791 (Vargha priv.).
322
Aspaas in press (in Finnish).
- 155 -
as regards its suitability for literature.323 These patriotic remarks, although formulated in
Latin, resemble the ideology of a text in the Hungarian language that was published two years
later, by the Hungarian-guard member Georgius (György) Bessenyei. With his pamphlet, the
littérateur Bessenyei wanted to “prove that the Hungarian language was suitable for the very
highest literary genre”.324 As interpreted by Benedict Anderson and other historians of
nationalism, this event marked the “birth of Hungarian nationalism”.325 The role of the
Demonstratio in this process is ambiguous. One may conclude, however, that it was not only
the Latin language that Father Hell promoted, he also tried – at least during the early years of
the 1770s – to benefit from a current of pro-Magyar sentiment by supporting the patriotic
study of Hungarian. This strategy did not work out well. The Demonstratio was ridiculed and
held against Hell by Born and his circle in the 1780s, and even the leading intellectuals of the
Hungarian Guard – Bessenyei among them – spoke against its main thesis.326
It is said in the catalogues of the Society of Jesus that Hell mastered “Slavic” (probably
Slovak) and that he used this language during mass in Claudiopolis. One may infer that he
also used it in Leuchovia. However, there is nothing in the primary sources that I have had
access to that suggests that Hell played a role in the codification of Slavic languages of the
Kingdom of Hungary, which was taking place during eighteenth century, a process in which
several Jesuits of his generation took part.327 Far more marked is his use of that highly
ambiguous language, German.
After the suppression of the Society of Jesus, Hell published far more works in German than
he had done before this watershed. His issuing of German-language almanacs around 1775
has been mentioned above. In the same period, he also published numerous articles in
German-language newspapers, journals and books. These publications of Hell’s treated in part
astronomy, in part other subjects such as medicine.
323
For example Sajnovics 1771, p. [xiv]: “per tot secula egregie exculta, seu ubertate vocabulorum, seu concinna
brevitate, seu intimos animi sensus explicandi dexteritate, nulli Orientalium, aut Occidentalium Linguarum
inferior, multis autem certe superior evasit [scil. lingua Ungarorum]” = “[the language of the Hungarians,]
splendidly cultivated through so many hundreds of years, has emerged as inferior to no other language, be it
eastern or western, as regards its richness of vocabulary, its elegant succinctness or its suitedness to express the
inner emotions of the human soul. Indeed, in these respects it is superior to many other languages”.
324
Paul Ignotus, in the work Hungary from 1972, as quoted by Anderson 2006, p. 73.
325
Ibid.
326
See Kontler 2011 & in press.
327
See Kamusella 2009, pp. 99-139.
- 156 -
When in 1775 a collection of essays by ex-Jesuit professors was issued in Vienna, called
Beyträge zu verschiedenen Wissenschaften von einigen Oesterreichischen Gelehrten
(‘Contributions to Various Sciences by a Few Austrian Erudites’),328 Hell apparently made no
protests, but on the contrary welcomed the German rendition of some selected astronomical
works of his. After all, his two pieces in this set of Contributions had already been published
in Latin in the appendices of the Ephemerides Astronomicae. Towards the end of his life, at
the very same time that he sighed over the widespread decline in Latin competence to
Eszterházy, he allowed a colleague in Vratislavia, Antonius L. Jungnitz, to translate nearly all
the appendices of his Ephemerides Astronomicae into German and publish them in quick
succession, as Beyträge zur Praktischen Astronomie, in verschiedenen Beobachtungen,
Abhandlungen, Methoden aus den astronomischen Ephemeriden der Herrn Abbe’ Maximilian
Hell (‘Contributions to Practical Astronomy, in the Form of Various Observations, Treatises
and Methods taken from the Astronomical Ephemeris of Mister Abbed Maximilianus Hell’,
four vols., Breslau & Hirschberg 1790-93).329
Hell also discussed astronomy in popular newspapers. One particularly verbose series of
articles were published in the newspapers Mannheimer Zeitung and Wiener Diarium in 1777.
Here, two ex-Jesuit astronomers, Christianus Mayer and Maximilianus Hell, engaged in a
heated discussion of the phenomenon that is nowadays known as double stars. Hell claimed to
have discovered the phenomenon far earlier than Mayer, and what is more, he disagreed with
Mayer in his interpretation of the phenomena as a sort of ‘satellites’, or “Fixsterntrabanten”.
The debate went on throughout the autumn of 1777, after which year Mayer continued
publishing (and debating) on the phenomenon in German and Latin, whereas Hell appears to
have withdrawn from the public debate.330 Furthermore, Hell even used German for public
lectures in astronomy, which he announced in newspapers in the latter half of the 1770s.331
In German-language periodicals he also tried to gain a reputation as a medical doctor. As far
as I have been able to ascertain, Hell essentially made two attempts to establish himself as an
328
Scherffer et al. 1775.
Jungnitz’ edition of the Beyträge was antedated by a German version of Hell’s proposal of new constellations
in honour of King George III and William Herschel (Vienna: Trattner, 1789). That too had been translated into
German by Jungnitz.
330
For an excellent analysis of the polemics surrounding Chr. Mayer’s work on double stars, see Moutchnik
2006, pp. 273-314 (see however my review, Aspaas 2008b, for correction of some minor errors).
331
Haberzettl 1973, p. 197.
329
- 157 -
authority on medicine. The first was relating to ‘magnetic healing’, or Mesmerism. The
second attempt had to do with scurvy.
Magnetic healing in the Enlightenment is primarily associated with Franz Anton Mesmer
(1734-1815), who after initial experimentation in Vienna moved to Paris, where he became
something of a ‘star’.332 Hell’s 1762 treatise on the application of magnets of steel contains no
mention of medical use. In a letter to Weiss in Tyrnavia, dated Vienna 7 May 1765, Hell is
expressly skeptical about the possible healing power of his steel magnets:333
I am happy that my Father Colleague [i.e., Weiss] has become a colleague of
mine even in medical subjects. For even I have here turned magnetic doctor and
experienced the effect [of magnets] on various persons. However, the effect of
this artificial magnet in easing the pain of toothache, I ascribe not to magnetism
(which can have no influence on the teeth unless these were made of iron or
steel), but to the coldness of the steel. Next time I will test this with a piece of
steel which is not magnetised, and I think the effect will be the same; my
Honourable Father Colleague can make the same experiment, pretending that
the metal that is applied is magnetic, so that the pain of the patient is not
disturbed by persuasion.
This was one year before Mesmer published his first in a series of works on magnetic healing,
inspired by amongst others Father Hell, who for his part was to claim publicly after his return
from Vardø that he – not Mesmer – was the one who had discovered the potentials of artificial
magnets as healing devices. His polemics against Mesmer were published in German.334
A side-effect of this publicity was that Hell received heaps of mail and had numerous visitors
at his door, begging for his help with all kinds of ailments.335 Popular science could make you
too popular.
A second medical issue in which Hell tried to be credited with having made an important
discovery, was use of sugar as prophylactic medicine against scurvy. While in Vardø, Hell
had experienced that several local inhabitants suffered from this disease. He himself, his
332
The classic study is by Darnton 1968. See now also Schaffer 2010 or Krefting 2010 (in Norwegian), with
their references.
333
Hell to Weiss in Tyrnavia, dated Vienna 7 May 1765 (quoted from Pinzger 1927, p. 198): “Gaudeo Patrem
Collegam, et in materia medica mihi collegam factum, nam et ego hic medicus magneticus evasi, effectumque in
pluribus expertus sum; effectum hunc magnetis artificialis sistendi dolores dentium, ego non magnetismo (qui
nullam cum dentibus connexionem nisi hi e ferro vel calybe essent habet) sed frigori calybis adscribo. Proxime
tentabo cum lamella calybea non magnetica, puto eundem me effectum obtenturum; idem R. P. Collega
pertentare poterit, simulando applicatam lamellam esse magneticam ne persvasio dolores patientis perturbetur.”
334
See Hadobás 2008.
335
Hell to Weiss in Tyrnavia, dated Vienna 27 January 1775 (Vargha priv.).
- 158 -
assistants and all the sailors of the ship, who spent the winter in Vardø as well, were not
affected at all. The cause of the disease, Hell argued, was the presence of too much salt in the
air. By eating sugar on a regular basis, the balance of salt versus sweet in the body was kept
constant. Hell’s theory was published in the Wiener Realzeitung in 1777, but was refuted and
forgotten.336
It is noteworthy, then, that Hell in fact promoted his own reputation as an expert on medicine
in the German vernacular. As regards the Wiener Realzeitung, he even was a member of the
editorial team of this journal in 1777, which aimed to disseminate scientific news to a
German-reading audience. Although he broke with the journal after less than one year,337 this
circumstance reveals that Hell also ‘went with the flow’ and used German for scientific texts.
In other words, Maximilianus Hell did not only protest stubbornly against the spread of
German and decline of Latin. He also tried to adapt to the new politics, partly by lecturing and
composing scientific works in German, partly by allowing others translate his Latin treatises
and disseminate them to German readers. However, he did also cling to Latin whenever
possible. In this, his strategies differ from the paths followed by many other ex-Jesuits of his
own generation. One example is the littérateur Michael Denis SJ (also known as Sined the
Bard, 1729-1800), who was steeped in Latin, but favoured the German language by producing
numerous acclaimed works of poetry and prose in a refined German style. Denis was,
however, part of the circle around Ignatius a Born and as such a likely supporter of
progressive ideas and practices.338 A more conservative voice resembling that of Hell, was the
ex-Jesuit Ignatius Wurz (1731-1784). This theologian had been sacked from the University of
Vienna in the aftermath of 1773. After this, he emerged as a leading figure in the rhetoric of
the conservative forces of the Catholic church. His numerous polemical works were, however,
issued exclusively in German.339 Conservatism did not necessarily imply use of Latin.
The same ambiguity could be said to characterise Maximilianus Hell’s regrets against the
policies of toleration promoted by Joseph II. While he hated the decrees of Vienna that
336
Hell’s short article, first printed in the Wiener Realzeitung 1777, 8ten Stück, p. 122-126, was reissued in 1779
along with a devastating refutation by Doctor Von Albertiz (Anonymous [ed.], 1779). See also Aspaas 2008, p.
65.
337
Haberzettl 1973, pp. 31-32. The reason for the break was evidently that the profile of the Realzeitung turned
increasingly towards Enlightenment politics in the late 1770s, op.cit., pp. 32-26.
338
Haberzettl 1973, passim.
339
Haberzettl 1973, pp. 200-201.
- 159 -
protected the rights of Protestants and brought them into university life under the banner of
tolerance, he applauded the policies of Frederick II of Prussia. In a letter to Jean Bernoulli in
Berlin, dated Vienna 1 March 1775, Hell expresses joy for the way in which the King of
Prussia protected the Jesuits in Silesia.340 He fails to recognise, however, that Frederic did so
in the same ideological spirit in which his counterpart in Vienna protected the Protestants.
Finally, some remarks on the international aspect of Hell’s career. Since his appointment as
Imperial and Royal Astronomer in 1755, Father Hell had deliberately sought to acquire
international fame as an astronomer. After the suppression of the Society, however, we have
seen how he became increasingly absorbed in local issues. In his satire of 1784, Born put into
Hell’s mouth an account of how “after sweating over this work [i.e., the Expeditio litteraria]
for ten years”, he decided to “say goodbye to all mundane issues” and to “ascend from
astronomical matters even higher into the heavens, and henceforth treat nothing but spiritual
and divine subjects”.341 In a comment to this sentence the editor Schlözer adds that “Herr Hell
was nevertheless elected a fellow of the Royal Society of Sciences in London in the preceding
year”.342 A similar claim is made in some of the historiography, for example in Ferrari
d’Occhieppo’s article in the Dictionary of Scientific Biography (1972):343 “Christian VII of
Denmark and George III of England offered Hell honorary pensions much higher than his
salary, but he refused them”. Furthermore, Schreiber claims that a “call to England with a
considerable salary, which [Hell] received at the time of the Suppression of the Society, he
declined”.344 Without source reference, it is hard to establish the facts in these cases. Suffice
to say that Hell is missing on the official lists of fellows of the Royal Society of London. The
only Jesuits who were elected fellows during the eighteenth-century appear to have been
Roger Joseph Boscovich, Christianus Mayer and Martinus Poczobut, head of the observatory
in Vilnius.345 Moreover, Hell appears to have had no personal contact in erudite circles in
England until 1776, when he finally received an answer from the Astronomer Royal,
340
Hell to Bernoulli in Berlin, dated Vienna 1 March 1775 (UB Basel).
[Born] 1786, p. 229: “Desudaui per annos X in edendo hoc opere”, and below on the same page: “Dicto ergo
mundanis omnibus vale, ab astronomicis altius ad aetherea ascendi, & abinde nil nisi spiritualia & divina
tractaui”.
342
Schlözer in [Born] 1786, p. 229 footnote: “Gleichwol ist Hr. Hell erst im vorigen Jar, von der königl. Societät
der Wissenschaften in London, zum Mitglied aufgenommen worden.”
343
Ferrari d’Occhieppo in Gillispie (ed.), vol. VI, p. 234.
344
Schreiber 1904b, p. 111.
345
Aspaas 2008b.
341
- 160 -
Maskelyne, upon repeated requests for help in furnishing the Agria observatory with
instruments.346
Until solid evidence emerges, the alleged ‘English trace’ in Hell’s career ought to be treated
as dubious. The ‘Danish trace’, however, has a more solid fundament in the sources. In a
petition delivered to the Kaiserlich-Königliche Hofkammer (virtually, the ‘ministry of
finance’) in July 1781, Hell asks for a higher salary. In doing so, he argues that one reason
why he deserves a rise in payment is347
because I, in consideration of the honour of the Imperial and Royal Court,
rejected an offer of a yearly personal pension of a thousand Gülden from the
Danish Court as a token of gratitude for my highly strenuous and dangerous
journey to the island Wardoehus in the Arctic Ocean, where I observed the
transit of Venus in front of the Sun. I refused to receive this pension because I,
as Imperial and Royal Court Astronomer, deemed that it would be negative for
the honour of the Imperial and Royal Court if I benefited from a pension from a
foreign court in conducting my work.
There is no mention here of any similar offer from England, nor have I found it mentioned in
any other document that has been available for this study.
On the whole, the scientific ambitions of Maximilianus Hell appear to have been scaled down
after about 1780. The major astronomical contributions to the supplements of the
Ephemerides Astronomicae in the 1780s were either authored by Hell’s serving assistant
Franciscus Triesnecker or by his former assistant, Antonius Pilgram.348 His own contributions
in the appendices of the Ephemerides Astronomicae gradually shifted away from the core
subjects of practical and theoretical astronomy towards more externally oriented works. Thus,
in the volumes for 1787 and 1788 Hell published poems and other texts celebrating the
discovery of the planet now known as Uranus, which, he argued, should be named Urania
after the muse of astronomy; in the 1789 volume, he published a curious elegy arguing that
346
See Section II.3.1 below.
Hell to the Kaiserl: Königl: Hofkammer in Vienna, no date, but according to an administrative note received
25 July 1781 (Akademie der Wissenschaften in Vienna): “weil ich in Betrachtung der Ehre des K: K: Hofes die
mir von Dänischen Hof angetragene jährliche Pension ad Personam von tausend Gülden als eine Remuneration
wegen der sehr beschwerlichen und gefährlichen Reise nach der Jnsul Wardohuβ im Eiβmeere, wo ich den
Durchgang der Venus vor der Sonne beobachtet hatte, ausgeschlagen, und nicht angenommen hatte, aus Ursach,
weil ich als K: K: HofAstronom der Ehre des K: K: Hofes nachtheilig erachtete, von einem fremden auswärtigen
Hofe eine Pension meines Amts wegen zu ziehen.”
348
Cf. Sommervogel 1893, pp. 244-246. Beginning in the late 1780s, the highly talented, but far less renowned
astronomer Johann Tobias Bürg (1766-1834) also took part in observations at the Vienna University
Observatory. After Hell’s death in 1792, he served as Triesnecker’s adjunct and co-editor of the Ephemerides
(for a popular account of Bürg’s career, see Firneis 1993).
347
- 161 -
Adam was ‘the first and greatest astronomer in history’; in the volume for 1790, he published
a star map with new constellations named after George III and William Herschel,
accompanied by an eulogy of the two characters; and so forth.349 Tailing this series of artistic
works, Hell issued two fragments of the Expeditio litteraria in the volumes for 1791 and
1793.
No biography is complete without an end. Hell met his on 14 April 1792, shortly before his
72nd birthday. A few weeks earlier, the Viennese court astronomer had caught a lung fever,
which quickly deteriorated and in the end proved fateful. His scientific heritage was preserved
by the new court astronomer Franciscus de Paula Triesnecker, who ran the Imperial
Observatory and issued the Ephemerides as before. However, Hell’s manuscripts and
correspondence were for a long time on private hands, as has been explained in Section I.1.2.2
above. Although a substantial collection of manuscripts made its way to the Imperial
Observatory some fifty years after the death of Hell, crucial parts were either lost or are still
awaiting their discovery.
It is to be hoped that missing parts of the manuscripts, maps and other illustrations that Hell
made for the Expeditio litteraria will one day emerge. If some of the conclusions of this
biographical essay will be proven wrong thanks to such a stroke of luck, its author will be the
first to applaud. The etymology of the word ‘essay’ after all implies that it is an ‘attempt’, no
more.
I.2.4.1 PARALLEL LIVES, PART II: CAREER PATHS OF OTHER EX-JESUITS
FROM THE AUSTRIAN PROVINCE OF THE SOCIETY OF JESUS
This subsection will follow the same pattern as subsection I.2.2.1 above. This time, however,
the focus will be on the impact of the transition from Jesuit-run observatories to institutions
administered by the state in the aftermath of 1773. Hell remained at his workplace after the
suppression, but his case was special since his institution had been founded (and funded) by
the state in the first place. Other observatories (and observers) mentioned in the previous set
of parallel lives experienced a different plight. Above, we saw how the Jesuits were not
unique in establishing observatories and making observations: even Benedictines and various
private individuals contributed to the growth of interest in astronomy in the Habsburg lands
349
Sommervogel 1893, pp. 245-246.
- 162 -
around the mid-eighteenth century. The overall aim of this subsection, then, will be to
investigate the new conditions for astronomical activity in the former Austrian Province of the
Society of Jesus from 1773 to 1792.
The observatories will again be used as starting points. Apart from the university observatory,
or Imperial and Royal Observatory of Vienna that was run by Maximilianus Hell, we shall
investigate the plight of Jesuit observatories that had either been constructed, or were planned
to be constructed, in Vienna, Claudiopolis, Buda, Graecium and Tyrnavia. Included in the
story are developments in institutionalised astronomy at other places, namely in Leopolis,
Mellicum, Lambachum and Agria. In all these places, ex-Jesuits had a role to play. The career
of Franz Xaver von Zach is finally introduced, as an example of a Central-European
astronomer without a Jesuit background. First of all, however, a historiographical remark is
necessary.
Horst Kastner-Masilko, in his biography of Hell’s successor Triesnecker (published 2005)
concludes that “the dissolution of the Jesuit order had almost no impact on the work at the
Vienna Observatory”.350 The expert on the ex-Jesuits of Austria in the period in question,
Hermann Haberzettl, concludes on a similar note:351
a quite special ‘favourite pet’ in the scientific activity of the Jesuit order was
astronomy. In this discipline, no change took place in the wake of the
suppression. The status of the ex-Jesuits remained unchallenged.
In contrast to these statements stands Hell’s frequent laments on the Society’s suppression,
such as this one from 1790:352
350
Kastner-Masilko 2005, p. 47: “Die Auflösung des Jesuitenordens hatte fast keine Auswirkung auf die Arbeit
der Wiener Sternwarte”.
351
Haberzettl 1973, p. 196: “Ein ganz besonderes Lieblingskind der wissenschaftlichen Betätigung des
Jesuitenordens war die Astronomie. In diesem Fach änderte sich durch die Aufhebung nichts. Die Stellung der
Exjesuiten blieb unangefochten”.
352
Hell 1790, pp. 301-302: “Hac enim Dissolutione SOCIETATIS JESU effectum est, ut officii mei Astronomici, & laborum meorum Astronomicorum Sociis & Adjunctis, quos SOCIETAS JESU suis Sumptibus
aluerat, omnibus prorsus destitutus, & penitus privatus fuerim, mihique uni & soli tam annuæ Ephemerides
Astron[omicæ] calculandæ, & typis edendæ, quam observationes Astron[omicæ] instituendæ, peragendæ, &
continuandæ, quam etiam Commercium litterarium cum Astronomis totius Europæ (imo & cum Pekinensibus in
Sinis) habendum, omnesque reliqui labores Astronomici, sine Sociis, & Adjunctis, soli & unico perficiendi
fuerint. // His in temporum angustiis, nihil mihi aliud deliberandum superfuit, quam aut officio Astronomi Cæs.
Regii valedicere, si nempe promissum EXPEDITIONI MEÆ LITTERARIÆ vastum, in tribus Tomis
conscribendum Opus absolvendum vellem: aut, Opus hoc supprimendum, si scilicet, officium Astronomi (quo
stante SOCIETATE JESU, adjutus laborum Sociis, fungebar) porro continuandum decernerem”.
- 163 -
as a result of this dissolution of the Society of Jesus, I was utterly deprived of all
those assistants and adjuncts, paid by the Society of Jesus, who used to aid me
in my astronomical duties and activities. Thus, by my own efforts solely and
uniquely I must both do the calculations for the annual Ephemerides Astronomicae and preside their publication, as well as take care of the planning,
conducting, and continuation of astronomical observations, and even take care
of my scientific correspondence with astronomers all over Europe (in addition to
Beijing in China); and whatever other astronomical tasks that called for my
attention, must be done without any assistants or adjuncts, solely and uniquely
by myself. In this time of hardship, I was left only with two choices: either to
bid farewell to my chair as Imperial and Royal Astronomer, if I wished to finish
my vast, three-volume work Expeditio Litteraria as promised, or to suppress
this work, if I decided to continue in my chair as an astronomer, a chair in which
I, for as long as the Society of Jesus existed, was helped by assistants in my
work.
Hell’s view, that the suppression of the Society of Jesus was detrimental to science, has been
adopted by most authors with pro-Jesuit leanings. On the other hand, Kastner-Masilko and
Haberzettl are by no means unique in their claim that astronomical activity was never
seriously affected by the sudden change of status from è Societate Jesu to exJesuita (from ‘of
the Society of Jesus’ to ‘ex-Jesuit’) that befell Maximilianus Hell and his colleagues. Given
the discrepancy between the two views, it appears necessary to give the issue a brief inquiry.
A lexical remark may be worthwile. As explained by Haberzettl, the term ex-Jesuit has at
least two meanings. It may include persons who:353
1) either through voluntary exit or as the result of expulsion, left the Society
after having delivered their vows, usually after having spent a relatively long
part of their life as its member; 2) usually also those who, through the
suppression of the order that was sanctioned by the church in 1773, were freed
from their vows and forced to take another direction in their life.
Haberzettl has in his study chosen to employ the widest possible definition, so that even
Ignatius a Born, who left the order already as a novice, figures as “ex-Jesuit”. This subsection
sticks to the second definition and explores only the careers of members that were secularised
as a result of the Pope’s decree in 1773.
353
Haberzettl 1973, p. 9, quoting Ludwig Koch, Jesuitenlexikon , Paderborn 1934, p. 535: “[…] 1.) nach
Ablegung der Gelübde, meist nach verhältnismäßig langem Leben im Orden, diesen wider verlassen haben, sei
es durch freiwilligen Austritt oder durch Entlassung; 2.) gewöhnlich auch jene, die 1773 durch die kirchliche
Aufhebung der Gesellschaft Jesu von ihren Gelübden entbunden und zu einer anderen Laufbahn gezwungen
wurden.”
- 164 -
Despite radical changes in the institutional organisation of science in the Habsburg lands in
the wake of the year 1773, the Imperial and Royal Observatory of Vienna remained intact.
The number of assistants may have been reduced, but the court astronomer himself sat safe in
his chair. Whilst his colleagues abroad feared that the Ephemerides might be discontinued or
the Imperial Observatory shut down,354 nothing of the sort happened. Instead, the annual
volumes of the Viennese ephemeris were churned out of the press as before, with supplements
presenting long lists of observations as well as theoretically ambitious treatises.
Two hundred meters away, however, the Jesuit Observatory of Vienna was closed shortly
after the suppression of the Society. The director Liesganig, whom we met in Subsection
I.2.2.1 above, was appointed professor at the former Jesuit collegium of Galician Leopolis,355
which had come under Austrian rule in the aftermath of the first partition of Poland in
1772.356 From his base in Leopolis, Liesganig conducted extensive surveys of the new
Habsburg province of Galicia and served as the director of an observatory that had been
founded by the Jesuits around 1769.357 As Liesganig passed away in 1799, he left a large
collection of manuscripts from his surveys in Galicia. He did not, however, publish any
observations from Leopolis in the Ephemerides Astrononomicae edited by Hell and
Triesnecker. Back in Vienna, the Jesuit observatory seems not to have been manned at all
after Liesganig’s departure for Leopolis in 1774. In a letter to Weiss, dated Vienna 12
November 1783, Hell explains that358
I have managed to save the observatory of the Viennese academic collegium,
which surely, in case I had been absent from Vienna at that time, would have
354
See for example Bernoulli 1776b, pp. 9-10.
Leopolis (L) = Lemberg (G), Lwów (Polish), L’vov (Russian), L’viv (Ukrainian). Udías mistakedly locates
“Lemberg” to Alsace in France (sic! Udías 2003, p. 31).
356
The Jesuit collegium of Leopolis was founded in 1661, received papal approbation as a university as late as
the year 1759, a status it lost in 1773. For the next decade, it was known as the Theresianum, or academy for
noblemen, until Joseph II renewed its university status in 1784.
357
The observatory is missing entirely in Howse 1986. Udías conjectures that this observatory was founded by
Liesganig (Udías 2003, p. 31). However, Brosche 2009a, p. 25 includes an engraving of “das Observatorium des
Jesuiten-Collegs 1771” (“the observatory of the Jesuit collegium, 1771”) and an official webpage of the Ministry
of Education and Science of Ukraine gives the year of founding as 1769
http://www.lnu.edu.ua/Subdivisions/PROPERTY/astro/astro_eng_bg.htm (accessed 30 May 2011). According to
Fischer 1984, pp. 139 & 147, a Ludowicus Hoszowski SJ (1732-post 1773) served as professor of mathematics
at the Jesuit collegium in Leopolis from 1769 to 1773. During 1771-73, Hoszowski was also entered in the Jesuit
catalogues as Professor astronomiae and Praefectus musei mathematici at the same collegium, but he left for an
ecclesiastical post in Przemyslia after the suppression and seems never to have become part of the team around
Liesganig (ibid.).
358
Hell to Weiss, dated Vienna 12 November 1783 (Vargha priv.): “Speculam Colegij Academici Viennensis a
Cæsare conservatam obtinui, quæ certissime, si Viennâ id temporis abfuissem, sublata, et deposita fuisset, eo,
quod Architectus verba Cæsaris male interpretatus fuerit”.
355
- 165 -
been removed and demolished, because the architect had misunderstood the
words of the Emperor.
The Jesuit observatory is described as still in existence in the work on Wetterkunde that was
published by Antonius Pilgram in 1788. Exactly when it was demolished is not known.359 As
to Hell’s action to preserve it, this may be interpreted as a sign of his hopes that the Society of
Jesus would one day be restored and activities resumed at the former observatories.360
Before the suppression, the Society of Jesus had been in a position where it by its own means
could construct observatories and equip them with instruments and personnel. Although the
growth around 1750 was followed by a period of standstill, it remains a fact that between
1745 and 1756 the number of Jesuit observatories had tripled, from one (Vienna) to three
(Graecium and Tyrnavia added). In the course of the 1750s, the Benedictines constructed their
sole observatory in Cremifanum, led by Fixlmillner, and the state funded the Imperial and
Royal Observatory in Vienna, headed by the Jesuit Hell. No major expansions appear to have
taken place during the 1760s. As the 1770s begun, however, the Jesuits found that the time
was ripe for new establishments. Enlightened interest in astronomy certainly peaked around
the transit of Venus in 1769, and when Maximilianus Hell returned as an explorer of worldwide reputation in the year after, the conditions for a revitalisation of institutional astronomy
were probably as good as they could ever become. What few pieces of evidence I have come
across in the primary sources, are detailed below.
The observatory founded by Hell in Claudiopolis in 1753 has left only few traces in the
historiography. In a letter to Bugge in Copenhagen, dated Vienna 24 July 1789, Hell states
that this observatory was never finished. In fact, he had only been able to lay the foundations
(fundamenta), which361
still to this day lie hidden underground, since in the year 1755 I was called away
from that city once and for all, in order to take upon myself the duties of an
Imperial and Royal Astronomer in Vienna, a chair I still retain.
359
Steinmayr 2010a, p. 178.
Cf. Hell’s letter to Jean Bernoulli III in Berlin, dated Vienna 15 February 1777 (UB Basel).
361
“In Transylvania fundamenta speculae a me anno 1753. Claudiopoli (Clausenburg) jacta sub tellure adhuc
latent, ea de caussa, quod anno 1755. ex hac Urbe peremtorie Viennam ad officium Astronomi Caes. Regii, quod
hucusque gero, evocatus, speculam hanc Claudiopolitanam educere et perficere non potuerim” (quoted after
Pinzger 1927, pp. 154-155).
360
- 166 -
The catalogue of “Jesuiten-Mathematiker” compiled by Karl Fischer appears to contradict this
statement. Here, two of Hell’s successors as professors of mathematics in Claudiopolis,
Matthias Geiger and Paulus Benkő, are described as prof[essor] mathes[eos], praef[ectus]
Mus[aei] Mathem[athici] et Spec[ulae] astron[omicae] (‘professor of mathematics, director
of the mathematical museum [i.e., laboratory] and the astronomical observatory’) in the
periods 1755-57 and 1758-62 respectively.362 Perhaps they, like Hell before them, were only
directors of a planned observatory (specula)? Further confusion is added in a recent article (in
Hungarian) on the history of the Claudiopolis observatory by Ferenc Szenkovits.363
Szenkovits here reproduces an engraving of the centre of Claudiopolis dating from 1759, in
which a small tower on top of a two-storey building is visible. This has been interpreted as
proof that the observatory building was already finished by then. However, Szenkovits
concludes that the observatory, either in terms of instrumentation or observatorial
achievements, could hardly be compared to other observatories of a European standard. 364
That may be characterised as an understatement. The Claudiopolitan observatory is not even
mentioned in the numerous works of Jérôme Lalande or Jean Bernoulli that provide Europewide surveys of contemporaneous astronomy, let alone in Hell’s Ephemerides. A letter from
Hell to Jean Bernoulli III in Berlin, dated Vienna 15 Febuary 1777, clarifies the puzzle:365
A fourth observatory, the construction of which was begun by me in Claudiopolis in Transylvania in the year 1753 – I had laid down its very stable
foundations by the year 1755, when was called to Vienna – has remained
unfinished until now. As of the year 1773, work on this building was about to be
continued and brought to an end, if it were not for that fatal dissolution of my
order, which brought this task in disarray. I had in fact an astronomer there, a
Father of our Society by the name Hart[mann], professor of physics, whom I
had furnished with a mobile, three-foot quadrant, a pendulum clock and a fivefoot Newtonian telescope. [At the time when the suppression of the Society
arrived,] I had already received from him several observations aimed at
establishing the longitude and latitude of this observatory.
362
Fischer 1978, p. 170.
Szenkovits 2006.
364
Szenkovits 2006, pp. 106-111.
365
“quartum [scil. observatorium Astronomicum] à me An[no] 1753 Claudiopoli in Transylvania cœptum, cujus
Solidissima jecer[am] fundamenta, sed per meam Anno 1755 evocationem Viennam, hucusq[ue] ædificari
intermissum, jam quoque Anno 1773 labor ædificij continuan[dus] et perficiendus erat, nisi fatalis illa ordinis
mei dispersio, opus hoc interturbasset; [Astro]nomum ibidem jam habebam Patrem è Societate nostra nomine
Hart[mann] Physices Professorem, à me interea Quadrante mobili trium pedum, horolo[gio] pendulo, et tubo
Newtoniano 5 pedum instructum, à quo etiam observa[tio]nes nonnullas, ad longitudinem, latitudinemque
observatorij definiend[um] factas obtinueram” (UB Basel, some letters at the end of each line are missing on my
copy, due to their nearness to the binding. These are supplied [in brackets]).
363
- 167 -
This Hart[mann] (the final letters of his name are in fact illegible on the copy I have had
access to) should be Ferdinandus Hartmann SJ, who according to Fischer was born in
Cibinium,366 a town in far southeastern Transylvania with a large German-speaking
population. He entered the Society in 1753. Neither his year of birth nor death is stated in
Fischer’s catalogue, except that he served as a Prof[essor] geometriae et geographiae
practicae (that is, geodesy) in Tyrnavia in 1768/69, as a professor of mathematics in
Claudiopolis in 1770/71 and last but not least, as a Professor physices experimentalis in the
same town in 1772/73. His whereabouts after the suppression of the Society are not known.
The observatory of Claudiopolis appears never to have become fully operative.
In the important Hungarian town Buda (later merged with neighbouring Pest into Budapest)
the Jesuits ran a collegium. As the legend to Map 2 shows, this institution had a professor of
mathematics since 1744. Soon after Hell and Sajnovics returned from their expedition,
Sajnovics was given this post. At the same time, plans were being laid to make this former
assistant of both Hell (Vienna, Vardø) and Weiss (Tyrnavia) the director of a new Jesuit
observatory in conjunction with this collegium.367 With scarcely concealed pride Sajnovics in
a letter of 12 May 1771 exclaims:368
I am destined to become a professor in Buda, where I am supposed to lay the
foundations for practical astronomy. I this way, I hope to become the Royal
Astronomer of Hungary, which is the most illustrious title I can ever imagine.
In the above-mentioned letter to Jean Bernoulli, dated 15 February 1777, Hell explains that as
the suppression of the Society arrived in 1773, everything was ready, the funds had been
secured and Sajnovics appointed for the job of supervising the construction.369 Evidently, the
suppression of the Society of Jesus brought these plans to a halt.
366
Cibinium or Hermannopolis (L) = Hermannstadt (G), Nagyszeben (H), Sibiu (R).
In a letter to Weiss, dated Vienna 24 May 1771, Hell says (Vargha priv.; also found in Pinzger 1927, p. 106):
“De Specula Budensi nondum cum R. P. Provinciali conferre potui; optarem sanè, ut hoc in loco, quem ego
mihimet, qua Repetens Matheseos jam olim designaveram, astronomia excoleretur” = “I haven’t yet been able to
discuss the Buda observatory with the honourable Pater Provincialis [i.e., the head of the Austrian Society of
Jesus]. I would really hope that astronomy may be cultivated in the very same place that I, as a teacher of
mathematics so long ago, had planned to become my workplace.”
368
Sajnovics to Joannes Nagy, dated Tyrnavia 12 May 1771 (facsimile in Kisbán 1943, between pp. 40 & 41):
“Ego destinor pro Professore Budano, ut ibidem initia ponam astronomiæ practicæ, atque sic spero me futurum
Regni Ungariæ Astronomum! quo Titulo nihil unquam illustrius duxi”.
369
Hell to Jean Bernoulli III in Berlin, dated Vienna 15 February 1777 (UB Basel): “Eodem anno fatali 1773
Budæ […] à Patre Sajnovics Socio mei itineris danici Specula exstruen[da] jam decreta erat, sumptusque parati.”
367
- 168 -
At the dawn of the 1770s, the Jesuits did not limit themselves to their plans for expansions in
Claudiopolis and Buda. They also lobbied for developments outside their own ranks. As
explained in Subsection I.2.2.1, the Benedictines had proven themselves capable of funding a
high-standard observatory in Cremifanum. The historiography on the Benedictine order’s role
in the history of central-European astronomy is meagre. It is clear, however, that also that
order felt the pressure of the anticlerical sentiment that had gained currency in the country.
A recent contribution by Gottfried Glaβner and Christine Preiner presents an account of an
attempt to establish an observatory in at the Benedictine monastery in Mellicum (Melk), some
30 kilometres west of Vienna.370 In the late 1760s and early 1770s, the abbot of this
monastery tried to set in place various innovations in order to give his institution a more
‘modern’ profile, in response to the utilitarian ideology of this age. One of the plans he
nurtured was remaking the monastery’s powder tower into an astronomical observatory. The
abbot of Mellicum was encouraged in this project by amongst others the Jesuit astronomers
Paolo Frisi from Milan and Josephus Liesganig from Vienna, who both paid visits to
Mellicum to offer support and advice. In the end, however, the project was dropped because
of internal strife within the monastery.
Somewhat later, a modest Benedictine observatory was in fact funded at the monastery in
Lambachum (Lambach). Fixlmillner in a letter to Jean Bernoulli III in Berlin from the
summer of 1777, explained that an observatory was being established at this place, and that a
monk from the abbey had been sent to Vienna to receive instructions.371 The name of this
monk was Julianus Ricci OSB (1745-1812).372 Ricci stayed at Hell’s place in Vienna for
several months, until the autumn of 1777, when he travelled to Lambachum along with the
Imperial Astronomer, who was to assist in the practical arrangements for this observatory.373
370
Glaβner & Preiner, “‘…Physics would be a dry and barren subject without any experiments’: or why, in 1771,
the plan of constructing an observatory in Mellicum – despite good arguments – was not accomplished ” (in
German), 2009.
371
Fixmillner to Bernoulli in Berlin, dated Cremifanum 23 June 1777 (printed in Bode’s Astronomisches
Jahrbuch and summarised in Journal des Sçavans, Décembre 1778, p. 814): “Il dit, à la fin de sa Lettre, qu’on va
établir à l’Abbaye de Lambach, près de Cremsmunster, un Observatoire; & qu’un Religieux de cette Abbaye est
à Vienne pour prendre les instructions nécessaires”.
372
Rabenalt 1986, p. 129 footnote 2.
373
In a letter to bishop Eszterházy in Agria, dated Vienna 8 September 1777 (Vargha priv.), Hell writes:
”Crastina die, quæ est 9 Septembris, in Austriam Superiorem cum alio Astronomo Monasterij Lambachensis
Ordinis S. Benedicti, quem per menses quatuor hic Viennæ in Astronomia exercui, ad invitationem
Reverendissimi D. Abbatis excurro causa ordinandi novi observatorij ibidem exstructi” = “Tomorrow, that is the
9th of September, I will go to Upper Austria along with another astronomer of the Benedictine Monastery of
- 169 -
Whatever its position internally in the Benedictine system, the observatory in Lambachum
certainly never gained anything near the prominence of the Cremifanum observatory. In the
latter place, Fixlmillner continued his observations as before, unaffected by the downfall of
the Jesuit order. His observatory became a ‘node’ of European astronomy in its own right, but
Fixlmillner seems not to have promoted his colleague in Lambachum or his observations to
any great extent. That remained a more local affair.
I know of no further attempts to establish astronomical observatories either by religious orders
or private individuals in the geographical area covered by the former Austrian province of the
Society of Jesus. However, the plight of the Jesuit observatories that were operative as the
suppression arrived remain to be described.
The Jesuit observatory of Vienna has already been mentioned. The younger sister observatory
in Graecium, whose less-than-glorious history has already been described in Subsection
I.2.2.1 above, was closed not long after the suppression of the Society in 1773. As of 1774,
however, an “Alois Mayr” was appointed professor of astronomy in Graecium. He is probably
identical with the Antonius Mayr who moved from Graecium to Vienna a couple years
later.374 In any case, this Mayr did not remain in his chair for long. According to Johann
Schreiber, it was soon “judged proper to do away with the chair of astronomy [and] to lock
the observatory” of Graecium. It remained locked until it was finally demolished in 1787.375
The last director of the Graecium observatory was almost certainly Antonius Mayr SJ (or
Mayer). His career merits some consideration. Born in Vienna in 1738, Mayr entered the
Society around 1756, held a chair as ‘professor of higher mathematics’ (prof[essor]
math[eseos] repet[itae]) in Graecium in 1765-72, before he was appointed director of the
astronomical observatory in Graecium for the university year 1772/73.376 At least by 1776,
however, Mayr’s days in Graecium were over. He returned to Vienna, where he had a short
career as the adjunct of Maximilianus Hell. On the title pages of the Ephemerides
Astronomicae for the years 1777 and 1778, he is presented as a calculator of the almanac as
Lambachum. I have trained him in astronomy for four months, and upon invitation from the Most Honourable
Abbed I will go there to arrange a new observatory that has been constructed at that place”.
374
According to Michaela Scheibl at the Universitätsbibliothek Graz his real name was not Anton, but “Alois
Mayr”. Under this name, on 9 April 1774 the ex-Jesuit Mayr was granted a salary of 500 Gulden to serve as
professor of astronomy in Graecium (Email from Michaela Scheibl, 17 January 2011).
375
Schreiber 1904a, p. 16.
376
Fischer 1978.
- 170 -
well as Hell’s adjunctus. In November 1776, Hell explains to his colleague Jean Bernoulli in
Berlin that to replace his two former assistants (see below) “I have received only one, the
adjunct Antonius Mayr. He is an ex-Jesuit, but will need to be instructed in astronomical
calculations first”.377 It appears these instructions were no success, for after 1777 he no longer
served as Hell’s assistant according to the title pages of the Ephemerides.378 His whereabouts
after 1777 are not known, except that he published a book on poisonous frogs in 1783
(Vienna). Wurzbach says he died in Vienna, but that his year of death is unknown.379
The career of another representative of the Graecium university, Franciscus de Paula
Triesnecker (or Franz von Paula Triesnecker, 1745-1817) is far better known. Born in Mallon
close to Kirchberg am Wagram in Lower Austria, he entered the Society of Jesus in 1761 and
studied philosophy in Vienna and mathematics and languages in Tyrnavia. In 1770/71 he
taught humaniora in Lincium before he enrolled as a student of theology in Graecium.
Despite the suppression of the order, Triesnecker continued his studies to become a doctor of
philosophy in Graecium in 1775. Triesnecker’s biographer Horst Kastner-Masilko has not
been able to establish his whereabouts in the interval from 1775 to 1780, in which year (or
early in the next at the latest) he emerged as the adjunct of Maximilianus Hell in Vienna.
Triesnecker was to stay in this role throughout the 1780s and early 1790s. After Hell’s death
in 1792, he inherited the position as Imperial Astronomer, and kept this chair until his own
passing in 1817. As an editor of the Ephemerides and its appendices, Triesnecker followed
loyally the principles that had been laid out by his predecessor until the series eventually had
to be discontinued in 1806 as a result of financial problems resulting from the Napoleonic
Wars.380 Unlike Mayr, Triesnecker appears to have been a success as an adjunct. Exactly who
taught him astronomy is not known, but it is tempting to conjecture that he learned the
rudiments of astronomy in Graecium before he was called to Vienna at the age of 35.381 Like
377
Hell to Jean Bernoulli in Berlin, dated 30 November 1776 (UB Basel): “horum amborum loco unic[us] mihi
datus est Andjunctus D. Antonius Maÿr exJesuita quidem, se[d] in calculis astronomicis primum instruendus”
(letters in brackets are my conjectures; they are missing on my copy because of their nearness to the binding).
378
It is probably this adjunct Father Hell refers to in a letter to Wargentin in Stockholm, dated Vienna 29 July
1778 (CVH Stockholm): “[…] adjumento Adjuncti mei perpetuo infirmi destitutus, tempus Dissertationum
conscribendarum necessarium omnino mihi defuerit” = “lacking assistance from my adjunct, who is constantly
ill, I have not had the time needed to write scientific works”.
379
Information on Antonius Mayr, unless otherwise stated, has been found in Schörg 2009, p. 100; Fischer 1978
(Schörg has not used Fischer); Wurzbach, Achtzehnter Theil (1868; note that Wurzbach has listed all “Mayer’s”
alphabetically as Meyer, regardless of the various spellings of this name).
380
On Triesnecker’s career, see Schörg 2009, pp. 83-86; Kastner-Masilko 2005 (Kastner-Masilko’s biography
should, however, be used with caution – see my review in Acta Historica Astronomiae, Aspaas 2008a); Pärr
2001, pp. 41-43; Wurzbach, Siebenundvierzigster Theil (1883).
381
See my review of Kastner-Masilko’s biography (Aspaas 2008a).
- 171 -
Liesganig, Triesnecker was to become an active surveyor in the service of the state; in the
1790s and 1800s, he took part in field works in both Galicia and Lower Austria.382
In the Kingdom of Hungary, developments were not as negative as in Austria proper. The
leading astronomer on Hungarian soil, Franciscus Weiss remained the director of the
Tyrnavian observatory until 1777, when it was decided that there should be only one
university in the Kingdom of Hungary and that this university was to lie in Buda. A new
observatory was then constructed at the new Royal Palace in Buda, with the Imperial
Astronomer taking part in the construction process.383 By 1779, construction works were
finished. Observations began in 1780, with Weiss the undisputed director. Sajnovics was to
remain in the background, and although he did publish a textbook of astronomy in 1778, 384 he
never received a chair as a professor of astronomy, far less the title ‘Royal Astronomer’,
which he had dreamed of a few years earlier. (Whether Sajnovics formally took over as
director in the interval between Weiss’ passing in January 1785 and his own death in May of
the same year is unclear.)
After Weiss’ departure for Buda in 1777, a former assistant of his at the Observatory in
Tyrnavia, took of over his chair as director. This ex-Jesuit, Franciscus Taucher (1738-1820)
had been born in Claudiopolis, but was educated in Tyrnavia during the flourishing period of
the Austrian Province. When Sajnovics left for Vardø in 1768/69, Taucher rose to the rank of
adjunctus and finally director. After Weiss and the rest of the university staff and students had
left, Taucher carried on a dreary existence at the former university compounds until the year
1785, when Weiss passed away.385 He then brought with him the remaining instruments from
the Tyrnavian observatory to Buda, where he took over Weiss’ post as praefectus of the
university observatory, a position he retained until his retirement in 1806.386 Fischer says he
382
Kastner-Masilko 2005, pp. 116-123.
In the spring of 1777, the year after he had been in Agria to make arrangements for Madarassy’s observatory
there (See Section I.2.4 above), Hell travelled to Buda to give advice on the construction of the new observatory
(Hell to Bernoulli in Berlin, dated Vienna 20 June 1777 [UB Basel]).
384
Sajnovics, Idea Astronomiae 1778 (reprint 1993).
385
Taucher’s letters to Weiss from this period, as edited by Magda Vargha, offer dark reading. Witness for
example his constant fear of a decree ordering the closing down of his observatory; his sentimental account of
the celebrations of Saint Loyola, patron saint of the Jesuit Order; or how he stubbornly refuses to give Emperor
Joseph II, sworn enemy of the Jesuits, access to the observatory during his visit to Tyrnavia in 1784 (letters to
Weiss in Buda, e.g. those dated Tyrnavia 29 August 1776, 5 May and 4 December 1784, edited by Vargha 1990,
pp. 127-128 and 1992, pp. 210-213).
386
Vargha 1992, pp. 226-227.
383
- 172 -
died in Quinque Ecclesiae.387 After 1785, the observatory of Tyrnavia was neither equipped
nor manned. The team at Buda included an assistant (adjunctus), he too an ex-Jesuit, by the
name Franciscus Bruna (1745-1817), from Zagrabia. He first served as the assistant of Weiss,
then of Taucher.
The downfall of the Jesuit order thus brought an end to what was likely to have become a
‘second wave’ of observatory establishments in Habsburg-ruled lands after the ‘first wave’ in
the period from the mid 1730s to the mid 1750s. With the Society of Jesus bereaved of its
resources, it was up to the state or the still surviving orders to fund new institutions.
When Haberzettl writes that “the status of the ex-Jesuits [in astronomy] remained
unchallenged”, this is true in the sense that there were no obvious inheritors. The statement is,
however, correct only from a strictly internal-scientific point of view. Seen from another
angle, the Jesuits had now lost their ability to decide for themselves, since all former collegia,
including their observatories, had been taken over by the state. The Imperial Astronomer
himself was never removed, although the dissolution of the Society was a serious blow to him
in spiritual terms. For all other Jesuit astronomers, however, the impact of the suppression
was far more concrete. At the end of this subsection, a few more career paths will be taken
into account.
The title page of the Anni 1776 volume (published 1775) of the Ephemerides Astronomicae
states that this particular issue had been “determined through calculations made under the
direction of Maximilianus Hell, by the Honourable Freiherr Ignatius Baron von Rain and
Franciscus Güsman, Astronomers of the University” (dirigente Maximiliano Hell … calculis
definitæ a RR. DD. Ignatio Lib. Barone de Rain et Francisco Güsman Astronomis
Universitatis).
Ignatius Lib. Baro de Rain was born in Vitopolis388 in present-day Croatia in 1737 and
entered the Society of Jesus in 1753.389 Of noble birth, he was educated at the Theresianum in
Vienna, presumably with Scherffer as his foremost teacher in astronomical subjects. He is
387
Quinque Ecclesiae or Sopianae (L) = Fünfkirchen (G), Pécs (H).
Vitopolis, St. Viti ad flumen or Flumen (L) = Fiume (Italian, also G, H), Sankt Veit am Pfaum (G), Reka or
Szentvit (H), Rijeka (Cr).
389
Dates according to Steinmayr 2010a, pp. 199-200. In Fischer’s catalogue an Ignatius Rain is said to have
been born in Vienna in 1757, which is surely a misprint, for he entered the Societas Jesu in 1753 (Fischer 1978).
388
- 173 -
probably identical with a certain M. Rain S.J. Repetens Matheseos (“M[agister?] Rain of the
Society of Jesus, teacher of mathematics”) that observed the Venus transit from the Imperial
Observatory in 1761;390 at least Ferencová in her biography states that Hell received
assistance from an “Ignáca Raina” in 1760/61.391 According to Steinmayr, the same Rain also
served, this time as “zweiter Assistent” (‘second assistant’), at Hell’s observatory in the year
1770, during Hell’s absence in Denmark-Norway.392 In the university years 1771-73,
however, Rain held the chair as professor matheseos at the collegium in Lincium. There is no
mention of Rain in the two recent “Diplomarbeiten” on the history of Viennese astronomy by
Nora Pärr and Cornelia Schörg.393 His collaboration for the Ephemerides was in any case
limited to the Anni 1776 volume only, and Steinmayr states that his year of death is unknown.
However, a letter from Hell to Jean Bernoulli III in Berlin, dated 30 November 1776, reveals
that Rain had by then already departed for a post as a professor of mathematics in Leopolis.
Rain here served as an assistant of Liesganig in his survey of Galicia. It may be he ended his
days in Galicia.394
The career of Franciscus Güsman (or Güssmann, Gueßmann, Guessmann, 1741-1806) is
briefly sketched in Cornelia Schörg’s Diplomarbeit.395 He was born in Wolkersdorf (roughly
15 kilometres north of Vienna) in 1741, entered the Society of Jesus in 1757 and was
preparing for departure for the Jesuit missions in China as the suppression arrived in 1773.396
His participation in the calculations of the Ephemerides appears to have been limited to one
year only (Anni 1776). By November 1776, Güsmann had left Vienna – along with Rain – to
receive a chair in physics in Galician Leopolis.397 Like Rain, he took part in Liesganig’s
survey of Galicia from the late 1770s onwards. In 1787 he returned to Vienna, allegedly
because of health problems, and was appointed professor of experimental physics at the
Theresianum.398 He taught partly at the Theresianum, partly at the Wiener Technisches
Hochshule until he retired and eventually died in Seitenstetten in 1806.399
390
Hell 1761a, p. 17. In a letter to Taufferer in Labacum (now Ljubljana), dated Vienna 6 April 1761, Hell
speaks of a bidellus (assistant, servant) by the name “Rain”.
391
Ferencová 1995, p. 29, sadly without source quotation.
392
Steinmayr 2010a, p. 200, likewise without source quotation.
393
Pärr 2001, Schörg 2009.
394
Information on Ignatius Rain, unless otherwise noted, has been culled from Fischer 1978.
395
Schörg 2009, p. 99.
396
Steinmayr 2010a, p. 181.
397
Letter from Hell to Jean Bernoulli, dated 30 November 1776 (UB Basel). Note that the content of this letter is
reiterated (in French) in the Second Cahier of Bernoulli’s Nouvelles Littéraires (Bernoulli 1777a, pp. 8-9).
398
Haberzettl 1973, p. 168. See also Brosche 2009a, pp. 22-23.
399
Information on Güsmann, unless otherwise noted, has been taken from Wurzbach, Sechster Theil (1860).
- 174 -
However limited evidence we have on some of these characters, it is striking that Hell was
able to continue to recruit his collaborators from former Jesuit circles. As an ex-Jesuit, he was
at least not entirely isolated from his former Jesuit network. He had problems keeping these
assistants, however: when the state called them to imperial purposes outside Hell’s sphere of
influence, they disappeared from sight.
One may ask again, then, how much difference the dissolution of the Society made to the
career of Hell as a professional astronomer. For one thing, his work pace was definitely
affected negatively. However, a major cause for his distractions appear to have been his
involvement in political intrigues. The infrastructure for practical astronomy was still in place,
there were assistants to hand and the very continuation of the Ephemerides is strong testimony
that theoretical work was being done at Hell’s observatory in Vienna. However, as a ‘nodal
astronomer’ Hell had lost most of his impact. Decisions concerning the fate of observatories
across the Habsburg lands were being taken by other decision makers. The Jesuit observatory
of Graecium was quickly closed; the Jesuit observatories of Tyrnavia and Vienna followed in
its wake. Instead of growth in the number of observatories there came a period of demise.
New university observatories in Buda and Leopolis, both run by ex-Jesuit staff, were not
sufficient to foster a new generation of astronomers. The Benedictine order made no
considerable expansion in astronomy, either. It stuck to its observatory in Cremifanum, to
which only a minor ‘satellite’ was added in nearby Lambachum.
Secular talent hardly found more opportunities in the Vienna-ruled territories after 1773 than
before that year. An example is the highly talented astronomer Franz Xaver von Zach (17541832), who was born in Pest (now part of Budapest) as the son of a German-speaking military
officer. Not much is known about his education, except that Zach was inscribed as a pupil of
the piarists, a ‘secular’ and liberal Catholic order that was to take over many of the teaching
facilities of the Jesuits after the suppression.400 Be that as it may, having been taught in
Vesprimia401 (roughly 100 km west of Budapest) and Pest in the 1760s and early 1770s, Zach
knew enough astronomy to be hired by Liesganig for his surveys of Galicia in the mid-1770s.
His personal opinion of Liesganig and other Galician ex-Jesuits, as expressed in later writings,
400
401
Brosche 2009a, pp. 15-16. On the piarists in Central Europe, see for example Koltai 2005.
Vesprimia or Vesprim (L) = Wesprim or Weißbrunn (G), Veszprém (H).
- 175 -
was far from flattering.402 Having ended his period in Leopolis, Zach travelled to Vienna in
1781/82 in search of a position and appears to have visited Hell, to no success.403 He then
embarked upon a grand tour of Italy, France and England, where he forged personal contacts
with various influential characters of contemporaneous astronomy and became the protégée of
the London ambassador of the important Saxonian town Dresden, Hans Moritz von Brühl.
Upon Brühl’s suggestion, Zach was eventually appointed court astronomer of the Duke of
Saxe-Gotha-Altenburg, Ernst II (1745-1804), in 1786. He then promptly moved from London
to Gotha, where he established an observatory and stayed in touch with his numerous
correspondents in more westerly parts of Europe. By the turn of the century, Zach had become
one of Europe’s leading astronomers, a position he kept until his death in 1832. His bitterness
towards the Jesuits was never weakened, and in his publications he continuously criticised
and accused them of manipulation of data sets and clandestine activities designed to keep
outsiders out of science.404
The bitterness of Franz Xaver von Zach may have been a special case. Some of his
accusations towards Liesganig and Hell resonate like repetitions of the propaganda of Ignatius
a Born and other freemasons (Zach was, by the way, a freemason himself). It should be
stressed that it was not only the ex-Jesuits who made things difficult for aspiring astronomers
from Central Europe in the final quarter of the eighteenth century. The utilitarian ideology as
promoted by Joseph II was combined with a reluctance to direct too many resources towards
science that was not ‘useful’. Maximilianus Hell sighed over this situation in a letter to Jean
Bernoulli, dated 15 February 1777:405
402
For various examples, see Brosche & Vargha (eds.) 1984 and Brosche 2009a (with references to numerous
recent contributions).
403
Brosche, in referring to a letter written by Zach from Lyon in the spring of 1783, tells that “die nicht
namentlich genannten kaiserlichen Astronomen ärgern sich, daß ihnen Maskelyne nicht auf ihre Briefe
antwortet” = “the unnamed Imperial Astronomers are irritated because Maskelyne does not answer their letters”
(Brosche 2009a, p. 31). The likely informant would be Father Hell, Imperial Astronomer of Vienna.
404
See Brosche 2009a (with ample references).
405
Hell to Bernoulli in Berlin, dated Vienna 15 February 1777 (UB Basel): “Sed hæc in Astronomiam
[practi]cam per destructionem ordinis mei illata damna, minora Sunt, qua[m] quæ observatoria olim jam à
societate exstructa, Pragense in Bohemia, Græcense in Stÿria, et Viennense in Collegio Academico perpessa
fuissent, nis[i spe?] resuscitandæ Societatis nostræ erectus, viribus omnibus obstitissem; jam e[nim?] Societatis,
et Scientiarum Solidarum inimici, Augustissimæ Jmperatrici per[suadebant?] tria hæc observatoria Sumptibus
societatis nostræ exstructa, instructaque, tanquam Superfluos, inanesque conservationis sumptus exigentia,
tollenda, demoliendaque esse; satis inanium sumptuum, pro sola, ut ajebant, apud exteros conservanda fama,
impendi observatorio Viennensi Cæsareo, et Tyrnaviensi; utque facilius Astronomiam unà cum Jesuitis
eliminarent; observatoria astronomica non esse utilia Princibus ajebant, nisi ijs, qui classem in Mari haberent,
atque navibus mercimonia exercerent, Regna autem Austriæ Subjecta, his carent, ergo Superflua esse
observatoria, Superfluos astronomos, Sumptus inanes, qui in Astronomiam impenderentur, quasi verò
Astronomia alium usum non haberet, nisi nauticum.” (Letters in [brackets] are my conjectures; they are missing
from the copy I have had access to because of their nearness to the binding.)
- 176 -
The above-mentioned damages that have been inflicted upon [Practical?]
Astronomy by the destruction of my order [i.e., the Society of Jesus], are
however less grave than the fate that would have befallen the observatories that
once upon a time were erected by the Society, namely the ones in Bohemian
Prague, in Styrian Graecium and at the academic collegium in Vienna, in case I
had not – encouraged by [a hope?] that our Society will one day be brought back
to life – resisted it with all my might. For [you see?], there are enemies of the
Society and of the hard sciences who have been [trying to persuade] Her
Highness the Empress that these three observatories, which our Society once
erected and equipped, were worthy of being destroyed and demolished because
they allegedly were superfluous and thus extracting worthless funds for their
conservation. Enough worthless funds, they said, were already being spent on
the Imperial Observatory of Vienna and on the observatory in Tyrnavia, for “the
sole purpose of retaining reputation abroad”. And in order to eliminate
Astronomy along with the Jesuits, they claimed that astronomical observatories
were useless to rulers except for those who have a fleet at see or are engaged in
maritime trade; accordingly, since the lands subjected to Austria lack these
properties, the observatories were of no use, the astronomers were of no use and
all funds were unworthy of being wasted on Astronomy: as if Astronomy had no
use except for navigation!
The dominant ideology during Joseph II’s reign had little respect for the heritage of Jesuit
science. We have seen that although Maximilianus Hell lingered in Vienna, Josephus
Liesganig and Franciscus Weiss moved, to Leopolis and Buda respectively, upon orders from
the state. None of the three are likely to have been particularly welcoming to ‘new men’ in
astronomy; there were enough former Jesuits around to recruit for the few vacancies and new
offices that existed. However, in consideration of the fact that the former Jesuit observatories
in Vienna, Graecium and finally Tyrnavia were being closed down in the aftermath of 1773, it
would be harsh to subscribe to the verdict of Franz von Zach, that the nepotism of the exJesuits was the main problem: the only new facility for institutional astronomy that was
founded in the former Austrian Province of the Society of Jesus in the fifteen years following
the year 1773, was not financed by the state, nor by a representative of the ‘progressive
forces’ associated with the masonic lodges. Ironically, Carolus Eszterházy, the conservative
bishop of Agria appears to have been the only true patron of institutionalised astronomy in the
Habsburg lands during the post-suppression period.
- 177 -
I.2.5 ASSESSMENT OF MAXIMILIANUS HELL’S CAREER
This biographical essay has presented a sketch, no more, intended to stimulate further studies
by others. The presence of this rather elaborate chapter in the thesis was necessitated by a lack
of consistency in the available literature on Maximilianus Hell and his works in conjunction
with the transits of Venus. Most previous works have been lacking proper source references, a
circumstance that has necessitated rather extensive use of primary sources in this essay.
Besides, the lack of academic publications on Maximilianus Hell and his contemporaries in
the English language gave further impetus to this essay.
Father Hell’s ‘nationality’ has been – and still remains – an important issue to many authors,
understandably so, given the troubled historical experiences that Central Europe has
witnessed. Another important issue to many authors is the ‘innocence’ of this Jesuit: was Hell
in any way personally to blame for the vicissitudes he experienced? Furthermore, to state it
bluntly, it appears important to many biographers to clarify whether their biographee was a
genius or not. While trying to avoid ‘whiggish’ history writing, I do not dismiss these issues
as irrelevant. Accordingly, I will address them in brief. A final issue that I will discuss has to
do with our overall understanding of Jesuit science in eighteenth-century Europe and of
Father Hell’s place in this context.
As Map 1 showed, apart from his student years in Vienna, Hell’s career prior to 1755 took
place within the confines of the Kingdom of Hungary and the closely associated Principality
of Transylvania. He never hesitated to call himself a “Hungarian”, or Hungarus. The modern
borders, however, tell a different story. His childhood and school years took place in the
heartland of the modern Slovak Republic; his first professorship was in Romania; and, in
terms of mother tongue, he belonged to a largely privileged, German-speaking minority that
was widely dispersed all over the Kingdom of Hungary and Transylvania, as well as Austria
proper.
Proud scholars from both Slovakia and Hungary tend to hail Hell as a representative of ‘their’
nation state. Slovak authors will spell his name Maximilián Hell and use Slovak forms of the
names of places visited in his youth, even when producing texts in a foreign language. It is
true that Hell was born in a part of Hungary that is now known as Slovakia. He did learn
Slavic in his youth, for he was able to conduct church services in that language. However,
- 178 -
when certain Slovak writers classify him as a “Slovak scientist” and his expedition to Vardø a
“Slovak expedition”, they are pushing it too far. Hell never presented himself as a Slovak, nor
did he describe his birth region as a particularly Slavic region. Instead, he liked to present
himself as a Hungarus. To be “Hungarian”, however, implied something else entirely in
Hell’s youth than it does today.
As we have seen, Hell did not hesitate to define himself as a Hungarus (or Ungarus, as he
preferred to spell it) or to refer to the Kingdom of Hungary as his Patria (strictly translated,
“Fatherland”). Scholars from Hungary tend to refer to him by the name Miksa Hell (or Höll),
even when writing in English or French.406 Contrary to vulgar connotations in the twentyfirst
century, however, the characterisation ‘Hungarus’ in the mid eighteenth century was used for
at least five ‘peoples’ or ethnicities in the modern sense of the word. What they shared was
neither a common vernacular, nor religion, culture or heritage. The thing they had in common
was geography: every ‘Hungarus’ lived in an area that was then known as the Kingdom of
Hungary. This explains how Maximilianus Hell was included in the bio-bibliographical
encyclopædia of Alexius Horányi, Memoria Hungarorum et provincialium scriptis editis
notorum from the year 1776 (‘Dictionary of Hungari and people from the provinces that have
made themselves known through published writings’).407 On the other hand, in precisely the
same year, Ignatius de Luca included a biographical entry on Hell in his Das gelehrte
Österreich (‘learned Austria’). Wheras Horányi included Hell in his cavalcade of Hungari, de
Luca categorised him as an Austrian and declared that Hell’s parents were “both born
Germans” (that is, German-speaking).408 Perhaps this statement led Maximilianus Hell to
write in a letter to Bernoulli that409
My Hungary (for I am myself an Ungarus) has a more sane attitude towards
Astronomy, which is held in high esteem among the Ungari. Here in Vienna, a
work called Das Gelehrte Österreich, Part I, from the letter A to the letter O,
406
See for example Vargha 1990 and 1992; Szabados in Hockey et al. (eds.) 2007.
Alexius Horányi, Memoria Hungarorum et provincialium scriptis editis notorum Tomus II, 1776, pp. 81-90.
It might be mentioned that this genre of Hungarian Historia litteraria saw some significant predecessors in
earlier decades of the eighteenth century: see Tüskés 2010 on the works of Dávid Czvittinger, Mihály Rotarides
and Márton Schmeizel and their contexts.
408
De Luca 1776, p. 176: “beyde gebohrne Deutsche”.
409
Hell to Jean Bernoulli III in Berlin, dated Vienna 15 February 1777 (UB Basel): “Ungaria tamen mea (nam
ipse Ungarus Sum) Saniorem de Astronomia Sensum habet, maximoque apud Ungaros in pretio est. Prodijt hic
Viennæ, sub titulo: das gelehrte Oesterreich, Pars I. à littera A, ad, O, Virorum doctorum per Regna hæreditaria
austriaca Scriptis clarorum, nunc inter vivos versantium; Pars II à littera O, ad Z, sub prælo est; celebriores hos
inter Scriptores, Ungari maximum efficiunt numerum, centenis enim plures sunt, unde constat, Ungariam præ
cæteris Regnis hæreditarijs, Scientijs omnis generis excultam maxime floruisse, actuque florere, licet apud
Exteros hactenus (defectu commercij litterarij) pene ignoti fuerint Viri docti Ungariæ”.
407
- 179 -
providing a survey of learned men that are now living throughout the Austrian
hereditary lands and who have acquired fame through their writings, has been
published. Part II, from the letter O to the letter Z is now in press; among these
prominent authors, the Ungari make up the largest proportion, for they count
more than a hundred. This demonstrates that Hungary has flourished, and in fact
still flourishes, more splendidly than the rest of the hereditary kingdoms with
respect to the cultivation of all kinds of sciences. However, among foreigners
Hungary’s learned men have remained virtually unknown as a result of the lack
of scientific correspondence.
Father Hell was apparently anxious to stress, lest his Berlin correspondent should have any
doubts, that he was a Hungarus – and proud of it. True, the notion of nationality underwent
considerable changes in the final decades of the eighteenth century, when the ideas of
romanticists like Herder started to gain influence among littérateurs in Central Europe. As we
have seen, Hell did contribute to the increased interest in Hungarian language and history in
his age, but he disliked the narrow definition of the “real Hungarian” (Magyar, or ‘Hungarian
by blood’) that was advocated by several other champions of Hungarian patriotism in the
1770s and 1780s. One may conclude, therefore, that Maximilianus Hell was a non-Hungarian
speaking Hungarus from the Slovak part of the Kingdom of Hungary, parented by a Germanspeaking mother and father, educated by Latin-speaking Jesuits and provided for by the
cosmopolitan Viennese court for most of his adult life. In other words, he was neither a
typical Hungarian nor a typical Slovak in anything near the modern sense of these words.
Maximilianus Hell’s working languages were Latin and German, and he recognised the
importance of the French language, which he clearly read without difficulty, although he
never learned to write or speak it properly himself. When discussing scientific topics with his
Hungarian peers, he stuck to Latin, both in writing and orally. In the cosmopolitan milieu of
eighteenth-century Vienna, where – according to contemporaneous accounts – “German,
Latin, French, Italian, Greek, Hungarian, Bohemian, Polish, Flamish, Wallach, Turkish,
Illyric, Croatian, Windic and Ruthenic”410 were heard daily on the streets, Hell did fine with
his German and Latin. Since 1755, two designations were the first to appear on the title pages
of his publications: astronomus caesareo-regius (“Imperial and Royal Astronomer”) and – up
until the year 1773 – è S.J. (or è Societate Jesu, “of the Society of Jesus”). Both designations
signalled, to the eighteenth-century reader, the author’s adherence to multiethnic and
plurilinguistic entities. Hell’s use of scientific Latin facilitated dissemination of the
410
Cf. Knopper 1993, p. 131: “allemand, latin, français, italien, grec, hongrois, bohémois, polonais, flamand,
wallach [roumain], turc, illyrique, croatique, windique, ruthénique”.
- 180 -
Ephemerides Astronomicae in all countries of learning, and laid the foundations for his
membership in the informal, international ‘Republic of Letters’. As to the Vardøhusian
expedition, we shall see in a later part how Maximilianus Hell defined that as a “Danish
expedition”, just as the foreigners recruited by Catherine II’s Imperial Academy in the same
year undertook “Russian expeditions”.411 Thus, when a recent book refers to Hell’s expedition
as a significant event in “the history of cooperation of the Norwegian and Slovak nations”,412
this is an anachronism at best. No less misleading is a Hungarian author’s recent description
of it as a “Hungarian expedition”.413 As is to be expected, the former scholar has included no
Hungarian publications on his list of references, and the latter quotes no Slovak publications
whatsoever.
Tackling the co-existence of conflicting national appropriations in the historiography can be a
challenge.414 I do not wish to become a champion of any nationalistic cause. In order to avoid
this, I have consistently used the Latin forms of all names of places and persons from the
Kingdom of Hungary and Austria. Latin was, after all, the official language of the Kingdom
of Hungary as well as the Society of Jesus. The best way of avoiding anachronisms in the case
of the Hungarus and Jesuit Father Maximilianus Hell appears to be to stick with Latin.
Another sensitive issue is the distribution of blame and innocence in a history that is replete
with confrontations. The fundamental study of Hell’s life and scientific career that was
undertaken by Ferenc Pinzger has already been described at some length in Section I.1.1.4.
Later authors have in general followed in the same tradition. Pinzgerian hagiography has
prevailed over Littrowian slander. But is that really progress? I hope to have shown that there
were certainly blind alleys in the scientific theories promoted by Hell, and that his alleged
“modesty” was more than once overshadowed by jealous promotion of personal glory. In
brief, he was a human like most of us are.
What then about that concept, ‘Jesuit science’? Could it be that, despite the reservations raised
in Section I.1.1.2, the present treatment of Maximilianus Hell’s career as an example of Jesuit
science has turned out to be more helpful than previous classifications based on nationality?
411
See Chapter III.3.
Kafka [2003], p. 4.
413
Bartha 2004a, p. 50: “a várdői magyar expedíció”.
414
See Shore 2007, pp. 10-14 for a sound discussion of the challenges posed on western scholars in the study of
Jesuit history in early-modern Central Europe.
412
- 181 -
Two choices have been made in the above account. First, I have deliberately tried to interpret
Hell’s career within the context of the Austrian Province of the Society of Jesus. It was this
administrative division that was constitutive to his early career, rather than the borders of the
state. By breaking down national barriers that have proven themselves virtually
insurmountable to those who prefer to interpret Hell’s career as part of the history of a single
nation state, I hope to have contributed to an appreciation of his biography that is more in tune
with the realities of eighteenth-century Central Europe. The second choice has been to
interpret his activities within the framework of Habsburg politics. This has led to a second
lesson, which in a sense contradicts the above interpretation. Maximilianus Hell was not only
a Jesuit and an exponent of Jesuit science, as one might think when reading the series of
‘parallel lives’ presented above. Hell was also a representative of the Habsburg Empire. For
example, his work instruction explicitly demanded international contacts. This was hardly part
of the professional work instruction of the average Jesuit professor in the Austrian province of
the Society of Jesus. Therefore, to interpret Father Hell as a Jesuit and little else, hardly does
justice to his career. Rather, he should be seen as an official representative of the Austrian
Province of the Jesuit order and of the Habsburg Empire. After the dissolution of the Society
of Jesus, he became a man of conflicting loyalties and at times self-contradictory political
statements, strategies and practices. His loyalties became increasingly alienated from the
policies of his rulers, although he never resigned from his office as court astronomer. In this
sense too, he was a human being – neither a monster nor a saint.
In coming chapters of this thesis, the contributions of Maximilianus Hell to the eighteenthcentury efforts to calculate the solar parallax will be analysed. The two transits of Venus both
fall within the part of Hell’s career as a Jesuit Professor and Court Astronomer. However, the
calculations based on the 1769 transit of Venus were made in an atmosphere of an imminent
and finally real spiritual disaster to the main character of this thesis. Neither did the
suppression of the Society of Jesus pass unnoticed for Hell’s colleagues in France, Germany,
Russia and Scandinavia. To what extent the rhetoric directed against the Jesuits by
enlightened philosophes influenced the professional work of European astronomers in the
1760s and 1770s is a complex question, which will be addressed later.
- 182 -
Part II
THE EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY TRANSITS OF VENUS
AND THE ROLE OF MAXIMILIANUS HELL:
NORDIC AND CENTRAL-EUROPEAN CONTEXTS
II.1 THE 1761 TRANSIT OF VENUS AND THE ROLE OF FATHER
HELL
Neminem astronomiæ studiosum esse puto, quin ea quæ in hoc Veneris cum Sole
congressu observata fuerunt, intelligere valde aveat, præsertim cum nullus sit usquam
alius corporum cælestium concursus, quo incertas adhuc, aut nondum sat accurate
definitas Solis & Veneris parallaxes majori subtilitate assequi valeamus
- Eustachio Zanotti 1761 1
Quel est l‟Astronome qui ne connoisse pas les excellentes Éphémérides de Vienne?
- Jean Bernoulli 1771 2
The transits of Venus in 1761 and 1769 are widely recognised as „highlights‟ of eighteenthcentury science. This recognition has resulted in a considerable number of monographs,3
conference proceedings,4 journal articles5 and chapters in general histories and textbooks of
astronomy6 devoted to these events. Among this literature, contributions focusing on the
historical significance of a particular expedition, region or country abound.7
During the eighteenth century, Maximilianus Hell‟s Venus transit expedition to Vardø was
regarded as almost as exotic as, and certainly no less scientifically important than, that of
James Cook to Tahiti or of Chappe d‟Auteroche to California, both undertaken in the same
1
Zanotti, De Veneris ac Solis Congressu … 1761, p. 1: “I reckon there is no one interested in astronomy who
does not wait impatiently to learn what was observed during the recent meeting of Venus with the Sun,
especially since there is no other encounter between celestial corpses from which we are able to ascertain with a
greater degree of exactness the still unknown, or not yet sufficiently well defined, parallaxes of the Sun and
Venus”.
2
Bernoulli, Recueil pour les Astronomes, vol. I, 1771b, p. 154: “What astronomer does not know of the excellent
Ephemerides of Vienna?”.
3
Historical accounts of past transits of Venus, with ample explanations as to how they were predicted, how they
were used for computation of the solar parallax, how they were observed, etc. are provided by amongst others
Woolf 1959, Maor 2000, Sellers 2001, Sheehan & Westfall 2004, Marlot 2004, Arlot & Luminet 2004 (I have
not had access to the second edition of Maor [2004]).
4
The proceedings of the international gatherings in Gotha, Germany in 1998, Lancashire, UK in 2004 and at the
Observatoire de Paris, France in 2004 (edited by Brosche et al. 1998, Kurtz 2005 and Aubin 2007) contain
historical articles on the transits of Venus.
5
Among the many articles on this topic, Chapman 1998 (in English), Verhas 2001 (in French) and Verdun 2004
(in German) merit particular mention.
6
E.g. Vorontsov-Vel‟yaminov 1969, pp. 106-107; Herrmann 1984, pp. 38-41; Acker & Jaschek 1985, pp. 34-36;
Van Helden in Taton & Wilson (eds.) 1995, pp. 153-168.
7
See for example House & Murray 1997 or Orchiston 2005 on James Cook‟s Tahiti expedition; Nunis Jr. 1982
or Engstrand 2004 on Chappe d‟Auteroche‟s California expedition; Bedini 1997, pp. 184-188 on North America;
Metz 2007 on William Wales‟ expedition; Bray 1980 and Lomb 2004 (according to Hughes 2005b) on Australia;
van Gent 2005 on the Dutch West Indies; Butler 2005 on Ireland; Woolf 1962, Pecker 1998 and Débarbat 2005
on France; Aspaas 2011a on the Nordic countries; etc.
- 184 -
year. For over a hundred years, his sets of data from Vardø were prominent in debates
concerning the distances of the solar system. This fact has led to a number of monographs and
articles devoted to Hell‟s expedition and its scientific results.8 But whereas his importance in
the Venus transit project of 1769 is well known, not much has been said about his role in
1761.
In recent studies of early modern learning, considerable attention has been paid to the
contributions of the Jesuits in several branches of science, including astronomy.9 But whereas
the focus of most studies on the eighteenth-century transits of Venus has been on the role
played by French and British astronomers in co-ordinating expeditions and systematising data
assembled from various parts of the world, the impact of representatives of the Society of
Jesus has not yet received much attention. The international scope of this Catholic order, and
the custom of using Latin as a means of communication among the members of the order,
complicates traditional categorisations based on nationality or citizenship. Accordingly,
Maximilianus Hell‟s adherence to the Jesuit order will receive particular attention in the
present analysis of his role in 1761. Given the lack of literature concerning his impact in
1761, a variety of primary sources illuminating his activities – both as a „networker‟,
inspiring, facilitating and publishing the observations of others, and as a „theoretician‟,
assessing observations, calculating orbits and discussing various properties of the planet
Venus – will be explored.
Two initial sections provide a survey of the phenomenon and its place in contemporary
astronomy, with particular emphasis on the 1761 transit (Sections II.1.1 and II.1.2). There
then follow sections on Maximilianus Hell‟s role as a participant and networker of the
observations of 1761, and on his subsequent deliberations on various aspects of the theory of
Venus (II.1.3 and II.1.4). A concluding section assesses the role of Hell in 1761 from the
perspective of modern literature on the Venus transit project and perceived as an international
enterprise (II.1.5).
8
9
See the introduction to Chapter II.3 for references.
See Section I.1.1.2 for references.
- 185 -
II.1.1 THE PHENOMENON AND ITS PLACE IN CONTEMPORARY ASTRONOMY
A transit, or passage of Venus in front of the Sun as seen from Earth, is a rather rare
astronomical phenomenon. The first transit of Venus to be observed by means of astronomical
equipment took place in 1639. Since then, transits of Venus have occurred in the years 1761,
1769, 1874, 1882 and 2004. The next transit will take place on 5-6 June 2012, but after that
no transits of Venus will occur until 2117 and 2125. Thus, a passage of Venus is not for every
generation to witness.
The 1639 transit of Venus made no immediate impact and (as far is known) was only
observed by two amateur astronomers in the English countryside.10 By contrast, the precalculated transits of 1761 and 1769 attracted massive interest from the entire world of
learning. Indeed, they became major events of eighteenth-century science, attracting lavish
funding and propelling scientific expeditions into remote regions. The principal reason was
that the transits of Venus were seen as unique opportunities to measure the distance between
Earth and the Sun, a coveted measure in the „quantifying spirit‟ of the Enlightenment. Early
on in the seventeenth century, Johannes Kepler‟s (1571–1630) ground-breaking work on the
orbits of the planets had laid the foundations that enabled skywatchers to be prepared for
spectacular events, such as transits of Venus.11 The Newtonian theory of gravitation and
10
The observers were Jeremiah Horrocks (c. 1618–1641), observing from outside Liverpool, and his friend
Simon Crabtree (1610–1640), observing from the Manchester area. Horrocks, who had foreseen the event, has
recently been hailed as the “Father of British Astronomy” (Aughton 2004, title page), a rather odd suggestion,
since Horrocks‟ manuscript Venus in Sole Visa was left unpublished until it was sent out of the country and
eventually printed by the famous astronomer Johannes Hevelius (Jan Heweliusz, 1611–1687) in Danzig
(Gdansk, modern Poland) in 1662. Only then did the Fellows of the Royal Society of London become aware of
Horrocks‟ achievement (Hevelius 1662, pp. 111-181; cf. Aughton 2004, pp. 3-7). See also Posch & Kerschbaum
2005 and Chapman 2005 for illuminating studies of Horrocks and his place in the history of European
astronomy.
11
Kepler issued a pamphlet in 1629 asking “sailors navigating the Ocean”, as well as “learned men living in
America, the Mexican and neighbouring provinces”, along with European Professors of Mathematics and such
magnates as would “have the otium allowing them to take part in the pleasure of these celestial spectacles; in
sum, all and every one who cares for celestial matters”, to prepare for two spectacular events he foresaw for
November and December of the year 1631 – a transit of Mercury and a transit of Venus in front of the Sun
(Kepler, Admonitio ad Astronomos … 2nd ed. 1630, pp. 12-13: “Satis hoc est caussæ, ut adhorter omnes & singulos, non naucleros tantum, qui Oceanum navigabunt, doctósve viros, qui Americam, qui Mexicanam & vicinas
provincias habitant; sed Europæos quoque, Professores Mathematicos in Academiis constitutos, Magnates
etiam, qvibus otium ad hæc spectaculorum cœlestium oblectamenta suppetit; denique universos, qvibus cœlestia
curæ sunt [...]”). Kepler himself passed away before the events took place, but the French Professor of
Mathematics, Pierre Gassendi (1592–1655) responded to Kepler‟s admonition and observed the transit of
Mercury from Paris on 7 November 1631. He also tried to observe Venus passing in front of the Sun a month
later, but failed to do so because that transit took place during the night and therefore (as we now know) was
invisible in Paris (Gassendi, Mercurius in Sole visus, et Venus invisa Parisiis, Anno M.DC.XXXI. orig. 1632 =
Gassendi 1658, pp. 499-510; cf. Maor 2000, p. 42 n. 2; Marlot 2004, p. 61). See also Hughes 2005a for an
- 186 -
mechanics presented later in the same century (Isaac Newton, 1642–1727) had further
improved the methods of calculating the movements of the planets, but there were still
considerable uncertainties about the actual distances from the Sun to the various planets. A
transit of Venus was seen as the best way to solve the problem; observations of Venus in front
of the Sun from widely separated sites on Earth would reveal tiny shifts from which the
absolute distance between the Sun and Earth could be deduced. Once the Sun-Earth distance
was known, the distances between all the other planets in the solar system could be deduced
as well, by means of Kepler‟s Third Law.12
The astronomical unit to be obtained was based on the so-called parallax: an object (in this
case, Venus) is seen to vary its position against a background (here, the Sun) when viewed
from different angles. Holding a finger in front of you will produce a similar phenomenon: if
you look at your finger with one eye at a time, you will see that its position shifts against the
background (e.g. the wall of your study) as each eye is closed. Similarly, eighteenth-century
astronomers wanted to use a transit of Venus to produce a parallax: the tiny disc of Venus
would be viewed in different positions against the background (the Sun) as various
astronomers spread themselves over the Earth. The distance between various sites of
observation on Earth, combined with apparent shifts in the position of Venus in front of the
Sun, as seen from each site, would provide the data necessary to determine the solar parallax.
The term solar parallax may be defined as “the angle, which the semidiameter [i.e., radius] of
the earth subtends, being seen from the Sun”.13 Taken the other way around, this amounts to
the shift of the Sun‟s position when moving from the centre of Earth to a position at the
surface where the Sun is seen in the horizon (the distance between the centre of the Earth and
its surface equals the radius of the Earth). However, as no observer could possibly enter the
centre of the Earth, widely-separated observers on its surface had to suffice instead. Provided
the geographical position of each observer was determined, the distance between them could
be used to calculate what the difference in view would have been between the centre of the
interesting discussion of why only Horrocks and Crabtree saw the 1639 transit, despite the fact that it would have
been visible in western parts of the European continent as well.
12
Kepler had found that “the squares of the times of revolution (periods) of the planets are proportional to the
cubes of their mean distances from the sun” (quoted after Woolf 1959, p. 3). Whereas the times spent by each of
the then known planets – Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn – in encircling the Sun were known
to Kepler, he could only guess at the distances between them. However, as soon as the distance between the Sun
and any of the planets in the Solar system was known, the size of the whole system could be deduced by means
of this Third Law. For a discussion of the mathematical principles behind the Third Law, see Davis 2005.
13
Peter Daval, “An Account of the Sun‟s Distance from the Earth …” 1764, p. 1.
- 187 -
Earth and its surface. In sum, two sets of data were necessary: first, the geographical position
of each observer and second, the exact divergence of Venus‟ path in front of the Sun as seen
from the various stations. What was then obtained was primarily the data needed to determine
the distance between Earth and Venus. However, since the relative distances between the
planets had been known ever since the days of Kepler, the distance between Earth and Venus
could easily be used as a basis for the distances between all the known planets in the solar
system, including the coveted Earth-Sun distance itself (see Fig. 3).
The size of the Earth was fairly accurately known by the mid-eighteenth century. Thus, the
figure of the solar parallax was really just a compressed, internationally acceptable way of
expressing the distance between Earth and the Sun, without having to choose between
English, French or various German miles, the Russian verst, the French toise or (later) the
kilometre. The smaller the parallax, the greater the distance between Sun and Earth.
A planetary transit can only occur with either of the two planets Mercury and Venus, since the
other planets in our solar system have orbits farther out, thus never passing between the Sun
and the Earth. However, although transits of Mercury occur fairly frequently (between twelve
and fourteen times a century) they have been of little use in calculating the solar distance.
Mercury is simply too close to the background (the Sun) to offer any substantial parallax, no
matter how far the terrestrial observers spread themselves apart.14 The planet Venus, on the
other hand, orbits the Sun much closer to us and should therefore be of far better use,
according to the ideas of influential Enlightenment astronomers. To use the finger-analogy
again: if you hold your finger only a centimetre or two from the wall, no substantial shift will
be produced as you close each eye in turn (that is, the background will shift about as much as
your finger). At half a metre‟s distance, however, the parallax will be considerable.
14
Edmund Halley, who observed a transit of Mercury from St. Helena in the southern Atlantic on 7 November
1677, tried his best to obtain corresponding observations from Britain in order to determine the solar parallax. He
was probably inspired by a short scholium in a work by the Scottish mathematician James Gregory (1638–1675),
stating that (Gregory in Woolf 1959, p. 15): “This problem has a very beautiful application, although perhaps
laborious, in observations of Venus or Mercury when they obscure a small portion of the sun; for by means of
such observations the parallax of the sun may be investigated” = Gregory, Optica Promota 1663, p. 130: “Hoc
Problema pulcherrimum habet usum, sed forsan laboriosum, in observationibus Veneris, vel Mercurii particulam
Solis obscurantis: ex talibus enim solis parallaxis investigari poterit”. Due to bad weather in the British Isles,
however, no corresponding observations of the Mercury transit could be found. Later, Halley became convinced
that a transit of Mercury would be unsuitable to measure the solar parallax, pointing instead to the coming
transits of Venus. Nonetheless, efforts were made by French academicians to determine the Sun‟s parallax by
means of a Mercury transit as late as 1753, but after that the idea seems to have been abandoned for good in
favour of the transits of Venus (see HARS 1753 [1757], pp. 228-240, especially p. 239; cf. Woolf 1959, pp. 3551; Marlot 2004, pp. 92 & 99).
- 188 -
A transit may last for several hours, depending on how close to the centre of the Sun‟s disc
the planet makes its passage. As a result of parallax, the time spent by the planet crossing the
disc of the Sun will also vary according to where on the surface of the Earth an observer is
situated. The transit of Venus in 1769, for example, as observed by Maximilianus Hell in
Vardø, lasted 6h 29′ 34½″ (6 hours 29 minutes 34½ seconds). At the same time, the
astronomer Charles Green (1735–1771) of James Cook‟s (1728–1779) crew on Tahiti saw
Venus spend 6h 5′ 37″ crossing the Sun, i.e. nearly 24 minutes less.15 This difference in time
was a key figure in the calculation of the Sun‟s parallax. By measuring the exact time spent
by Venus in crossing the Sun, astronomers were able to determine how close to the centre of
the Sun‟s disc the transit took place as seen from each station. Theoretically the position of
Venus on the Sun‟s disc could be measured. In practise such observations were difficult and
the displacements of Venus not large enough to yield a satisfactory result. Exact timekeeping, combined with the determination of each observer‟s geographical position, therefore
came to constitute essential data for the computation of the solar parallax (see Fig. 4).
15
Duration of the entire transit as reported by Hell, Observatio Transitus Veneris … Wardoëhusii … facta …
1770a1, pp. 78-80 (=1770a2, pp. 97-100; 1770a3, pp. 613-616; 1770a4, pp. 92-94; 1793, pp. 298-303) and by
Green in Cook, “Observations made … at King George‟s Island in the South Sea …” 1772, p. 410.
- 189 -
FIGURE 3 THE SOLAR PARALLAX
The solar parallax p is the angular displacement of the Sun when the observer moves from C
to A. This is the same as the angle p' subtended by Earth‟s radius r as seen from the Sun.
Since α>>r, we have p = p' = r/α.
Illustration and accompanying text by Truls Lynne Hansen. Reproduced with permission.*
- 190 -
FIGURE 4 THE SHIFT OF VENUS‟ PATH FROM TWO SITES OF OBSERVATION
During a transit of Venus, the path of the planet on the disc of the Sun as seen from A and B
would shift, altering the times of ingress and egress as well as the duration of the transit (note
that the degree of shift has been exaggerated here).
Illustration and accompanying text by Truls Lynne Hansen. Reproduced with permission.*
- 191 -
FIGURE 5 THE KEY STAGES OF A TRANSIT OF VENUS
α: exterior contact of ingress (first contact), b: interior contact of ingress (second contact),
c: interior contact of egress (third contact), d: exterior contact of egress (fourth contact).
Illustration and accompanying text by Truls Lynne Hansen. Reproduced with permission.*
- 192 -
FIGURE 6 DELISLE‟S METHOD
Delisle‟s method requires observations of the time of ingress or egress and knowledge of the
observers‟ positions on Earth. When an observer at A sees the start of the ingress, an observer
at B still has to wait a while for the event. Venus moves faster than Earth and the line from B
therefore swings towards the Sun. The relatively slow rotation of Earth is of secondary
importance in this context.
Illustration and accompanying text by Truls Lynne Hansen. Reproduced with permission.*
- 193 -
II.1.2 THE 1761 TRANSIT OF VENUS
As soon as the 1761 transit came about, however, and sets of data from the various stations
were to be used in order to compute the solar parallax, problems emerged. The English
astronomer Edmund Halley (1656–1742), the first to present the astronomical community
with an elaborate plan of computing the solar parallax based on the coming transits of Venus,
had been convinced that the position of the planet would vary considerably when viewed from
stations to the far north and south of the equator. Consequently, provided the observers spread
themselves sufficiently far apart, the only co-ordinates needed were a) the geographical
latitude of two places of observation, and b) the difference in the time spent by Venus
crossing the disc of the Sun, as seen from the two places. Combined, these figures would
provide the basis needed to settle the parallax problem once and for all, he argued. 16 On the
other hand, this meant that the entire duration of the transit would have to be observed.
The crucial stages of the transit were the moments of contact between Venus and the limb of
the Sun, commonly designated as the exterior and interior contact of ingress, and the interior
and exterior contact of egress, sometimes referred to in order of appearance as the first
exterior, first interior, second interior and second exterior contacts, or sometimes just first,
second, third and fourth contacts (see Fig. 5).17 It was the two interior contacts, that is the
second and third contacts, that were of primary concern to Halley. But what if cloudy weather
deprived an observer of one of these crucial contacts, or a station‟s geographical position
made only the beginning or the end stage of a transit observable? Following Halley‟s method,
precious data from many stations risked having to be discarded. This concern was raised by
the French astronomer Joseph-Nicolas Delisle (1688–1768), a leading figure in the planning
of the transit project of 1761. In various memoirs, articles, letters and unpublished lectures he
presented an alternative method for the computation of the solar parallax. If a single contact
of Venus with the Sun‟s limb was observed from two stations ranging far apart, he argued that
16
Halley in Sellers 2001, p. 206 (=Motte‟s translation from the Latin in Abridgment of the Philosophical
Transactions, Vol. I. p. 243ff): “the transit of Venus over the Sun‟s disc […] will cause very sensible differences
between the times during which Venus will seem to be passing over the Sun at different parts of the Earth. And
from these differences, if they be observed as they ought, the Sun‟s parallax may be determined even to a small
part of a second”. The Latin original, Halley 1717, p. 457, reads: “Veneris transitus per Solis discum […]
maxime sensibiles efficiet differentias, inter spatia temporis quibus Venus Solem perambulare videbitur, in
diversis Terræ nostræ regionibus. Ex his autem differentiis debito modo observatis, dico determinari posse Solis
parallaxin etiam intra scrupulum secundi exiguam partem”.
17
The terms immersion and emersion are also used as synonyms for ingress and egress respectively (immersio
and emersio in Latin literally mean “diving in” and “diving out”, ingressus and egressus “going in” and “going
out”). Furthermore, internal and external are common synonyms for interior and exterior.
- 194 -
the difference in latitude and longitude between the two stations would provide the necessary
basis for the computation of the parallax (see Fig. 6).18 This suggestion no doubt came as a
relief to many astronomers on the European continent. The transit of 1761 was pre-calculated
to take place during the night and early morning hours as seen from the heartland of Europe,
leaving hope only for the egress (i.e. the end stages of the transit) to be observed. By
following Delisle‟s method, however, data from these observatories would be just as valuable
as those from faraway places on other continents.
Halley and Delisle were both right – in theory. However, there turned out to be at least three
sources of error involved in the delicate process of observing a Venus transit.
First, regardless of whether the method of Halley or that of Delisle was chosen, exact timekeeping was a crucial factor. Harrison‟s invention (John Harrison, 1693-1776) of the chronometer had just taken place as the transits of Venus came about. Only prototypes of the
technology were at hand, and what is more these were still widely held to be insufficiently
tested for scientific use.19 Thus, pendulum clocks were the only aid available, both in 1761
and in 1769. It is worth noting that James Cook did not even take a chronometer with him on
his first circumnavigation of the globe – instead, the moments of ingress and egress were
determined by means of standard pendulum clocks.20 A pendulum clock cannot be transported
while it is running, however, and will need to be corrected astronomically over several days in
order to be held to be reliable. Besides, its retardation or acceleration compared to the Sun
would vary from day to day, depending on the temperature. For most purposes, George
Graham‟s (1675-1751) temperature-compensated mercury pendulum solved this problem, but
a retardation or acceleration of a few seconds every 24 hours was still common. For the
delicate observations of a transit, where each moment needs to be determined to the exact
second, this uncertainty was unacceptable, which is why so many of the Venus transit reports
include tables of time-keeping stating the retardation or acceleration of the clock over many
days. For example, Maximilianus Hell used two pendulum clocks in Vardø: one from Vienna,
the other from Copenhagen. Both were constructed with temperature-compensated
18
In one of his manuscripts, read as a memoir to the Royal Academy of Sciences in Paris, 30 April 1760, Delisle
explains: “Cette methode consist à se servir des observations de l‟entrée où de la sortie dans des lieux ou l‟une
de ces deux phases arriveroit dans des tems les plus éloignés qu il seroit possible” (quoted from Les rendez-vous
de Vénus CD, caption Delisle, manuscrits 1753 et 1760, p. 10) = “this method consists of using observations of
the entry or exit [of Venus] at places where one of these two stages will take place at points of time differing as
much as possible between them”. See also Woolf 1959, pp. 33-35.
19
See for example Wilford 2000, pp. 152-162; Bennett 2002.
20
Cf. Aughton 1999, p. 11.
- 195 -
pendulums, so as not to be affected too much by climatic factors. Nevertheless, they had to be
tested against astronomical observations over several weeks leading up to the transit.21
Second, the moments to be observed were particularly the second, third and fourth contacts of
Venus with the Sun‟s limb. The very first contact, that of Venus‟ exterior contact at ingress
was generally held to be too difficult to observe. Venus being invisible in a daytime sky, the
observer would simply not know where to look for it until the contact had taken place and the
ingress had in fact started.22 However, during the transit of Venus in 1761, a totally
unexpected problem occurred. Instead of entering and leaving the Sun in the form of a welldefined round spot, Venus was seen to take the form of a black drop around the moments of
second and third contact. To some observers, this phenomenon seemed to last for almost a
whole minute. Whether this „black-drop effect‟ was caused by disturbances in the Earth‟s
atmosphere or that of Venus, or by some diffraction of light in the astronomical tubes of that
time, or was due to astigmatism in the eye of the observer, or amounted to the same as the
standard blurring of an image when two objects are very close to each other and the light is
too dim for the human eye to distinguish between them, in other words “a combination of
solar limb darkening and telescopic point-spread functions” has been a matter of dispute right
up to the present time.23 Whatever its cause, the phenomenon contributed to making the
results of 1761 ambiguous. For the 1769 transit the astronomical community was better
prepared and several reports include illustrations detailing the optical difficulties involved
(see Fig. 7). This did not eradicate the ambiguity of the data, but it was helpful when the
observations of various observers were compared.
Third, the path of Venus in front of the Sun as seen from widely-separated sites turned out to
shift far less than anticipated by Halley. There was no way that the difference in latitude
between stations could suffice. Accordingly, Delisle‟s idea had to be implemented – or rather,
a combination of the two – meaning that a knowledge of each station‟s longitude was
21
Only a small extract of these tests was published in the Venus transit report (Hell 1770a1, pp. 61-69). Hell‟s
MS “Observationes Astronomicæ et Cæteræ Jn Jtinere litterario Viennâ Wardoëhusium usque factæ” (1768-69)
contains a longer series of tests, starting 26 April and ending 4 June 1769. Another description containing
extracts from these tests is extant in an untitled MS of Hell, starting with the words “NB De Horologiis” (1769).
22
Halley in fact insisted that only the interior contacts were to be used, i.e. the time span between the occurrence
of the second and third contacts was the focus of his attention (cf. Halley 1717). Later astronomers extended
their attention to the exterior contacts as well, particularly the fourth and last contact of Venus with the limb of
the Sun.
23
See for example Horn d‟Arturo 1922; Bønes 1972; Brahde 1972; Maor 2000, pp. 95-97; Shaeffer 2001;
Pasachoff et al. 2005. Quotation from Pasachoff & Pasachoff 2010, p. 107.
- 196 -
required. In theory, the difference in longitude between two places could be measured simply
by transporting a running clock between them. The difference in local time, as revealed by
simple observations of the Sun or stars, would then reveal the difference in longitude between
the two places. However, as mentioned earlier, this is an impossible procedure when using a
pendulum clock. Hence, astronomers did their best by adjusting their clocks to local mean
time and then used celestial phenomena such as occultations of the moons of Jupiter or
eclipses of the Moon or the Sun, compared to observations of the same event communicated
by other astronomers in faraway places, to compute the longitude: a very delicate and timeconsuming process indeed.24 For the 1769 transit of Venus, however, a solar eclipse was
predicted to take place on the very day after the event. Most observers therefore used
observations of this eclipse as the basis for their longitude determination. Again, however,
when observing the eclipse, a similar set of sources of error had to be accounted for:
atmospheric disturbances during the eclipse, minute inaccuracies in time-keeping, resulting
from sudden changes in temperature, the subjective discernment and skill of the observer, and
so on.25
Despite these practical challenges – some foreseen, some unexpected – there were also good
reasons to hope for the success of the Venus transit projects of the 1760s. Not only had
theoretical astronomy undergone rapid development since the days of Kepler: practical
astronomy had also been brought to a totally new level, with new technical equipment
available to an increasingly large number of observers, the standardisation of observational
routines and the founding of professional observatories in conjunction with universities,
colleges, academies, societies of learning and monasteries.
24
As Moutchnik 2006, p. 101 points out, even at the astronomical centre of Paris astronomers spent almost the
entire eighteenth century defining the exact position of the observatory. Bearing this in mind, it should come as
no surprise that the meridian for temporary observatories in far-away places was liable to a certain degree of
error.
25
In the Histoire de l’Académie Royale des Sciences pour l’année 1757, the editors, comparing the methods of
Halley and Delisle, concede that “[i]l est vrai que la méthode qu‟y a substitué M. de l‟Isle, suppose qu‟on
connoisse la différence des méridiens entre les deux observatoires. Toute l‟erreur commise sur cette différence
des méridiens, tombe sur le résultat que l‟on tire des observations” (HARS 1757 [1762], p. 85) = “it is true that
the method which M. Delisle has substituted [to the one of Halley], presupposes that the difference of the
meridian between two observatories is known. Every error committed in the difference of meridians will affect
the result that can be deduced from the observations”.
- 197 -
FIGURE 7 THE BLACK DROP EFFECT
The black drop effect as depicted by Daniel Melander, professor of astronomy at Uppsala, in
his 1769 report “Uttydning på de Phænomener, hvilka åtfölja Planeten Veneris Passage
genom Solen” („Interpretation of the phenomena that follow the transit of the planet Venus
through the Sun‟ [Melander 1769]). Melander‟s Fig. 2, Fig: 3 and Fig 4 show formations of
Venus (V) during interior contact at ingress.
Digitised by the author.*
- 198 -
A few years after Halley wrote his admonition of 1716, the Wittenberg astronomer Johann
Friedrich Weidler (1691–1755) published a „Dissertation on the Present State of Astronomical
Observatories‟.26 In this work, published in 1727, a total of sixteen European observatories
are described, in addition to a sole Jesuit observatory in China. The largely chronological
arrangement of Weidler‟s dissertation bears witness to the initial phases of what we might call
an institutionalisation process of astronomy. Beginning with the long-since deserted
Uranienborg on Hven (or Ven), established by Tycho Brahe in 1580, he continues with
Rundetårn in Copenhagen (finished in 1642), Greenwich (1676), Paris (1671), Nuremberg
(1678) and Leiden (1633). In fact, these observatories are the only ones established prior to
1700 that he finds worthy of mention.27 During the first quarter of the eighteenth century,
however, Berlin, Kassel, Altdorf, Utrecht, Bologna, Rome, Genoa, Padua, Lisbon and St.
Petersburg followed suit.
During the second half of the eighteenth century, the French astronomer Joseph Jérôme
Lefrançais de Lalande (also spelled La Lande or Delalande, 1732–1807) undertook a similar
survey for his classic Astronomie. In the preface to the 1792 edition, a total of 138
observatories are described, the vast majority of them situated in Europe.28 Some were no
longer functioning at the time of writing; others were in the early stages of construction.
Nevertheless, the sheer number of observatories described by Lalande, compared to those
enumerated by Weidler, gives an idea of the rapid growth of interest in astronomy during the
eighteenth century. As the year 1761 approached, therefore, the conditions for success were in
fact even more promising than they had been in the days of Halley.
The 1761 transit of Venus took place in the midst of the Seven Years‟ War, in which the two
leading nations of astronomy, France and Britain, were opposing each other. Despite the
difficulties caused by the war they managed to co-operate and the standard history of the
eighteenth-century transits of Venus concludes that approximately 65 sites provided sets of
26
Weidler, De Praesenti Specularum Astronomicarum Statu Dissertatio, 1727. In the preceding year, the author
of the dissertation had travelled around Germany, the Netherlands, England, France and Switzerland, where he
had visited several of the observatories described, cf. the biography by Wilhelm Weidler 1915, pp. 6-10.
27
Other famous seventeenth-century observatories, like that of Hevelius in Danzig/Gdansk, are not mentioned by
Weidler, probably because they were not functioning any more at the time of writing (cf. the title of Weidler‟s
dissertation, “De Praesenti Statu…” = “On the Present State…”).
28
My count, on the basis of Lalande, Astronomie, 3rd edition, 1792, Préface, “Des différens observatoires de
l‟Europe”, pp. xxx-liv. The prefaces to the two prior editions of the Astronomie (published in 1764 and 1771)
do not contain analogous enumerations of observatories.
- 199 -
data that were used for the computation of the solar parallax.29 The vast majority of the
observers who embarked upon expeditions for this occasion were French or British. A mappemonde indicating where the transit would be visible had been issued by French astronomers
and given world-wide distribution ahead of the transit,30 and astronomers took up positions in
places such as Tobolsk and Selenginsk in Siberia, Rodrigues in the Indian Ocean, Pondicherry
in India and St. Helena in the Southern Atlantic, as well as numerous locations in Europe.
In 1716, Halley had stated that previous attempts to determine the Earth-Sun distance by wellknown astronomers such as Tycho Brahe, Copernicus, Kepler and Riccioli had resulted in a
distance ranging from 1,200 Earth radii up to 7,000 (“Earth radii” = semidiameters of the
Earth). By contrast, he anticipated that his own method would result in a calculation of the
solar distance with a margin of error of no more than 0.2 per cent. 31 However, given the
sources of error listed above, it should come as no surprise that computations of the solar
parallax based on all the 1761 observations varied from 8.28″ (Planman 1769), 32 8.33″
(Rumovskii 1767),33 8.615″ (Röhl 1768)34 and 8.69″ (Short 1764)35 to 9.00″ (Hell 1763,
29
Woolf 1959, pp. 135-141.
Reprint in Woolf 1959, Fig. 8, between pp. 98-99, cf. the distribution list on pp. 209-211.
31
Halley in Sellers 2001, p. 211: “We have now shewn, that by this method the Sun‟s parallax may be
investigated to within its five hundredth part” = Halley 1717, p. 460: “Diximus autem hac ratione Solis
Parallaxin intra quingentesimam sui partem investigari posse”.
32
Planman 1769 (paper written in 1767), p. 127: “Hinc iterum per medium habetur solis parallaxis 8″,49.
Rejecta autem columna tertia, ceu maxime discrepante, dabunt reliquæ solis parallaxin 8″,30, quæ cum parum
admodum abludat ab ista 8″,28, quam maximi momenti observationes præbebant […]; vi novissimi transitus
Veneris, parallaxis solis horizontalis quam proxime statuenda est 8″,28” = “Thus, once again we have a solar
parallax of 8.49 seconds. However, if the third column [of calculations], being the most divergent, is rejected, the
rest will give a solar parallax of 8.30 seconds. Since this parallax is so little at variance with the above-stated
parallax of 8.28 seconds, which the most important observations gave us […], the horizontal parallax of the Sun,
on the basis of the latest transit of Venus, should be stated to be very close to 8.28 seconds”.
33
Rumovskii 1767b, p. 510: “Omnes itaque obseruationes a me in computum ductae, eo gradu in statuenda Solis
parallaxi consentiunt, vt pleraeque non nisi in centesimis minuti secundi partibus discrepent, atque minima a
maxima non nisi 0″.36 […]. Mediam itaque ex his determinationibus quantitatem 8″.33 pro vera magnitudine
parallaxeos assumere iure possumus” = “Thus, all the observations that I have used for the computation, are in
harmony with each other for the fixing of the Sun‟s parallax to such a degree that in most cases there is a
discrepancy of only a hundredth part of a second between them, and the difference between the smallest and the
largest is only 0.36 seconds. Hence, the mean quantity of all the determinations – 8.33 seconds – we may justly
assume to be the true magnitude of the parallax”.
34
Röhl 1768, p. 110: “Jch habe aus allen diesen Beobachtungen aus dem Grade der Zuverläßigkeit, welches sie
in Ansehung der Parallaxe geben, und welche ohne Zweifel dem Unterscheide der Zwischenzeit zwischen den
Beobachtungen proportionirlich ist, das Mittel gesucht, und da finde ich noch 8″,615 wie vorher” = “From all
these observations [i.e., of the transit of Venus] I have sought the mean value, according to the degree of
reliability that they convey as regards the parallax, and which certainly is proportional to the interval of time
between the observations; and again I find 8.615 seconds, just like before”.
35
Short 1764, p. 340: “Thus is the Sun‟s parallax, on the day of the transit, concluded to be = 8″,56 [i.e., a mean
horizontal parallax of 8.69 seconds; cf. Verdun 2004, p. 12], and that from three different modes of comparing
together a great number of observations variously combined” (cf. Short 1763, p. 621: “The parallax of the Sun
being thus found, by the observations of the interior contact at the egress = 8″,52 on the day of the transit, the
mean horizontal parallax of the Sun is = 8″,65”).
30
- 200 -
Lalande 1764),36 9.26″ (Audiffredi 1766),37 9.89″ (Hornsby 1763)38 and 10.24″ (Pingré
1768),39 i.e. a margin of error of more than 10 per cent, a far cry from the 0.2 per cent
predicted by Halley! In kilometres, the figures of Planman and Pingré equal 158,884,000 and
128,472,000 km respectively, an unacceptable degree of uncertainty to the contemporary
„quantifying spirit‟.40
The three main sources of error mentioned above were also the „weapons‟ with which
astronomers attacked each other in the ensuing debates after the 1761 transit. In order to bring
all the data into harmony, it was necessary to consider some features of various observations
doubtful. The longitude might have been erroneously determined, the clocks wrongly adjusted
or the practical skills of the observer(s) insufficient. Given the ambition, publicity and the
sheer amount of money invested in the project, it may well be that such assessments aroused a
certain degree of anger among those whose observations were deemed unreliable. However,
judging from the tone of the main papers on the solar parallax published in the aftermath of
1761, it seems to be an exaggeration to describe this as a “quarrel between French and British
astronomers”.41 Quite the contrary: astronomers involved were generally careful to use polite
language when discussing the observations and/or calculations of their colleagues. With
hindsight, we may conclude that this strategy was a prudent one: most astronomical data sets
are useless when not compared with other observations.42 Cutting off correspondence with a
36
Hell 1763, p. 225: “Ex his omnibus concludendum arbitror, interea, dum Anno 1769. iterum instituatur
observatio transitus ♀ per discum ʘ, assumendam ex omnibus arithmetice mediam Parallaxim, scilicet = 9″.0.”
= “based on all these [i.e., observations] I think we may – while we are waiting for the year 1769, when another
transit of Venus across the disc of the Sun will be observed – draw the temporary conclusion that an
arithmetically deduced mean parallax should be assumed, namely, 9.00 seconds”; Lalande 1764, p. 800: “en
attendant que le passage de 1769 nous ait donné à ce sujet de nouvelles lumieres, nous nous en tiendrons à faire
la parallaxe moyenne du soleil de 9″” = “while waiting for the time when the passage of 1769 will have shed
new light on this issue, we draw the conclusion of a mean solar parallax of 9 seconds”.
37
Audiffredi‟s mean value of the solar parallax as calculated in De Solis parallaxi ad V. Cl. Grandjean de
Fouchy … Commentarius, Rome 1766, was – according to Pigatto 2005, p. 83 – 9″.26 (i.e., 9.26 seconds).
38
Hornsby 1764, p. 494: “such different methods give a parallax of the Sun on the day of the transit equal to
9″,736”. This represents a mean horizontal parallax of 9.89 seconds; cf. Verdun 2004, p. 12.
39
Pingré 1768, p. 32: “en excluant toutes celles que j‟ai marquées comme douteuses, la parallaxe est de 10″,24”
= “when all those [i.e., observations] that I have marked as dubious are excluded, the parallax is 10.24 seconds”,
cf. p. 23: “Si je persiste à croire que la parallaxe horizontale du Soleil est d‟environ 10 secondes ¼ , c‟est que
mon observation ne me permet de penser autrement” = “when I persist in believing that the horizontal parallax of
the Sun is about 10¼ seconds, I do so because my observation does not permit me to think otherwise” (cf. Pingré
1763, p. 486, where the mean horizontal parallax is stated to be as high as 10.60″).
40
I am indebted to Truls Lynne Hansen (pers. comm.) for calculating these figures, using the present value of
Earth‟s equator radius (6,378 km).
41
Chr. Mayer Ad Augustissimam ... Expositio de transitu Veneris ... 1769b, Praefatio, p. [v]: “inter Anglos
Gallosque ex obseruationibus anni 1761 natam de parallaxi horizontali controuersiam”; cf. Hell, De Parallaxi
Solis … 1772, pp. 113-114, where he speaks of lites litterariae (“scientific quarrels”) between French and British
astronomers after the transit of 1761.
42
For more on this aspect of early-modern astronomy, see for example Widmalm 1991 & 1992; Brosche 2009b.
- 201 -
centre of learning abroad by offending one‟s colleagues there risked a loss of access to
precious material for future research. Besides, the next transit was approaching: why run the
risk of making a fool of oneself when the data from the 1769 transit was analysed?
Despite the discrepancies between the various attempts to determine the solar parallax, the
1761 transit project had not been a total failure. Several features of the phenomenon had been
investigated and although some observers had missed ingress as well as egress, their
observations were still of use for purposes other than the solution of the parallax problem. As
one of the observers, the Italian Jesuit Eustachio Zanotti (1709–1782) noted, the transit was
useful not only for the definition of the solar parallax, “also, if we turn to the knowledge of
the planet Venus itself, this observation is no doubt to be preferred to any other method which
can possibly be attempted in order to adjust the nodes of its orbit”.43 Another feature of most
reports on the 1761 transit was the measurement of the size of Venus as seen on the Sun‟s
disc, which had been a matter of dispute since the 1639 observations. Several observers also
noticed a luminous ring around Venus at certain stages of the transit, which – sometimes in
conjunction with the black-drop effect – inspired them to make speculations concerning a
possible atmosphere surrounding Venus.44
The Venus transit projects of the 1760s have been described as the first ever projects of
international co-operation in science.45 The informal centre of co-ordination lay in Paris,
43
“ac si ipsam planetæ Veneris theoriam spectamus, non est dubium quin hæc observatio ad loca nodorum
stabilienda ceteris omnibus, quæ institui possunt, anteponenda sit” (Zanotti 1761, p. 1).
44
The Russian polymath natural philosopher, historian and poet Mikhail Vasil‟evitch Lomonosov (1711–1765),
who observed the transit of Venus from his private home in St. Petersburg in 1761, speculated on a possible
atmosphere of Venus. However, his report was only printed in limited numbers as a booklet in Russian and
German. Furthermore, it was never included in the official periodical of the St. Petersburg Academy, and was
poorly distributed, if at all, outside Russia. Hence, it seems to have been largely ignored until the late nineteenth
century, when it was republished in conjunction with the Venus transit of 1874 (cf. Kravets & Chenakal, in
Vavilov (ed.), „Lomonosov: Collected Works‟, vol. IV, 1955, pp. 353-376; 767-774). This late nineteenthcentury publication led Russian historians to hail Lomonosov as the discoverer of the atmosphere of Venus. In
recent literature, this claim is sometimes taken as indisputable (e.g. Maor 2000, pp. 88-91; Marov 2005; Ullmaier
2005, p. 146). However, speculation on a possible atmosphere of Venus can be found in numerous reports from
several countries: see for example Braun (observation in Saint Petersburg) in Hell 1761, pp. 92-94; Wargentin
(Stockholm) 1761b & 1762; Bergman (Uppsala) 1762; Hellant (Torneå/Tornio) 1761; Chappe (Tobolsk, Siberia)
1762; Ferner (Conflans, near Paris) 1762; Dunn (Chelsea) 1762; A. Mayer & Röhl (Greifswald) 1762; cf. the
very valuable discussion in Röhl 1768, pp. 114-148. Unlike Lomonosov‟s booklet, these reports – which were all
published in the immediate aftermath of the transit – were distributed far and wide in the Republic of Letters.
See also Nordenmark 1939, pp. 175-192; Oseen 1939, pp. 152-154; and the discussions of Meadows 1966 and
Marlot 2004, pp. 159-163.
45
Woolf 1959, p. 4: “the conjunction of enlightened interest and scientific practice, actually achieved in the
observations of the transits, also gave rise to the first international, co-operative scientific expeditions in modern
history”. Moutchnik 2006, p. 18 includes a project of cartography between Vienna and Paris that started in 1761,
on the initiative of Cassini de Thury, as one of three international projects of cooperation in eighteenth-century
- 202 -
where the senior astronomer Delisle, assisted by his colleagues Charles Messier (1730-1817),
César-François Cassini de Thury (also called Cassini III, 1714-1784), Nicolas Louis de
Lacaille (also called l‟Abbé La Caille, 1713-1762) and the above-mentioned Lalande were
pulling the strings. They were all central in the planning of the project, distributing scientific
papers and letters containing practical counsel and encouragement to astronomers in the
provinces and abroad, and making arrangements that enabled them to obtain the best
astronomical equipment available. Consequently, in the days, weeks and months after the
1761 transit had taken place, observations came trickling in to the Royal Academy in Paris for
the academicians to assess, adjust and publish. Another centre that received numerous Venus
transit reports was the Royal Society in London, where a series of articles was subsequently
printed in the society‟s Philosophical Transactions. A third centre that also did much for the
instigation, organisation and subsequent publication of Venus transit observations all over the
world, but which has received far less attention in modern research, was the Imperial and
Royal Observatory of Vienna, led by Maximilianus Hell. Paying attention to the role of Father
Hell in 1761 is important, not only because this may serve as a supplement, adding nuance to
the story of the eighteenth-century transits of Venus seen as an international enterprise, but
also because it may offer hints as to why the government in Copenhagen later came to choose
Hell as a candidate for the Vardø expedition (see Section II.2.4).
II.1.3 FATHER HELL AS A ‘NETWORKER’, ANNO 1761
In 1755, the Empress Maria Theresa of Austria had ordered the construction of a University
Observatory in the centre of Vienna, in addition to the Jesuit Observatory already established
in the same district since 1734. As director of the new “public” observatory, also called the
“Imperial and Royal Observatory of Vienna” (Observatorium Caesareo-Regium Viennense),
she appointed the Jesuit Maximilianus Hell, who at the same time was given the title
“Imperial and Royal Astronomer” (“kayserlich-königlicher Astronom”, or Astronomus
Caesareo-Regius).
science – the other two being the Venus-transit project of the 1760s (counted as a single project) and the Societas
Meteorologica Palatina of Mannheim, founded in 1781. The cartographical project of Cassini, however,
included far fewer participants from a limited area and cannot be compared to the universal interest invested in
the Venus transit project from the entire scientific community. A similar, small-scale but international
undertaking of much greater geographical distribution than Cassini‟s cartography project would be the lunarparallax project of 1751-52, in which several astronomers from at least five countries participated
(see Section II.2.1 below).
- 203 -
As explained in Section I.2.2 above, Hell was given instructions to issue a combined
almanac/journal for every year, apparently in emulation of the only analogous publication in
existence at the time, the Connoissance des Tems of Paris. The Ephemerides (Astronomicae)
ad Meridianum Vindobonensem began to be issued as early as 1756 (covering the year
1757).46 The choice of Latin as the language of publication made it readily accessible to the
entire world of learning. The high standard of calculations and studies presented in the
Ephemerides, combined with his prestigious position as Imperial and Royal Astronomer,
rapidly established Maximilianus Hell as a prominent figure in contemporary astronomy. 47 In
obtaining access to the data of fellow astronomers, both within the Habsburg territories and
abroad, Hell‟s status as a member of the Jesuit order was another advantage. The Society of
Jesus was the Catholic order that devoted itself most ardently to astronomy and the
mathematical sciences. The strong sense of community between the Jesuits and the mutual
exchange of letters inherent in their way of life were elements that fitted perfectly well with
the demands of practical astronomy.48 A network of Jesuit astronomers from China and India
to Italy, France, Spain, Germany, Central and Eastern Europe provided observations to be
assessed and published with comments by Father Hell and his assistants.
46
The issue for the year 1757 has no appendix, but appendices were added for every issue from the Anni 1758
volume onwards. As to the year of printing, Hell‟s Ephemerides, like any other almanac, was routinely issued
before the year it covered. However, the year of printing is missing from the title page of every issue until the
Anni 1766 volume, published “Viennæ MDCCLXV”. Thus, on the title page of the first issue we find Anni 1757,
and this year is taken for granted as the year of printing in some modern studies (e.g. Ferrari d‟Occhieppo 1957,
p. 28; Zdeněk 1970, p. 100; Weyss 1986a, p. 5; Harris 1993, p. 537 footnote 19; Lackner et al. 2006, pp. 17 &
23). One exception to the above rule was the Anni 1761 volume, which was delayed due to the move of the
printing house from one location to another. Several letters (compare Unprinted Sources, 1a) from JanuaryFebruary 1761 contain apologies for this delay, revealing the exceptionality of the situation (Hell to Lacaille, to
Delisle and to Messier in Paris, all dated 31 January 1761; Hell to Rieger in Madrid, dated 6 February 1761;
Hell to Braun in St. Petersburg and to Chappe d‟Auteroche in Tobolsk, both dated 8 February 1761). Two
manuscript bibliographies of Hell‟s published works, both written in Hell‟s own hand and preserved at the
monastery of Pannonhalma, Hungary (compare Unprinted Sources, 1c), explicitly state that the first volume of
the Eph.Astr. was in fact published in 1756 (Hell‟s MSS “opera à P. Hell. S.J. edita” [dated 9 June 1773] and
“Elenchus operum editorum à P. Maximiliano Hell” [1791]). In Hell‟s correspondence, no letter from the year
1756 is known to have survived. However, a letter from the Jesuit astronomer Joseph Steppling (or Stepling,
1716–1778) in Prague to Hell in Vienna, dated 30 January 1757, contains praise for the Eph.Astr., which he had
had the opportunity to leaf through: “Ephemerides à Ro P. ad annum 1757 editas, sane præstantes non sine
Voluptate vidi, et pervolvi, gratulorque Ro P. de initio isto, rebus astronomicis utilissimo, et Societati Nostræ
perquam honorifico” = “The Ephemerides published by the Reverend Father for the year 1757, which are of
really high quality, I have had the great pleasure of seeing and leafing through. I congratulate you, Reverend
Father, with this start, so useful for Astronomy and truly honourable for Our Society [of Jesus]”. All this
evidence combined seems to indicate that the Anni 1757 volume was also published ahead of the year it covered.
47
See for example the recension of the Eph.Astr. Anni 1761 in the Journal des Sçavans, Octobre 1761, pp. 672675. This volume was sent by Hell to the editors of the journal with an explicit request for a review (letter from
Hell to the editors of the journal, dated 18 March 1761). Shortly afterwards a recension of the Eph.Astr. Anni
1762 appeared in the Nova Acta Eruditorum, Anno MDCCLXII, pp. 49-58.
48
On the emphasis on correspondence in the internal structruy of the Society of Jesus, see for example Szilas
1972.
- 204 -
Prior to the 1761 transit, Father Hell issued a 20-page monograph with instructions as to how
the transit was to be observed.49 A lucid text, written in a language accessible even to those
with little previous experience in astronomy, it appears to have been widely disseminated.
This is evident not only from epistolary evidence,50 but also from the impressive report Hell
was able to compose only a few months after the transit had taken place, „Observation of the
Transit of Venus in front of the Disc of the Sun on 5 June 1761, with Observations of the
same Venus Transit made by Various Skilled Observers throughout Europe, and an Appendix
of Several Other Observations‟, published as an appendix to the Ephemerides Astronomicae
for the year 1762.51 Not all observers communicated directly with the astronomical giants of
Paris and London. Some shared their data with Maximilianus Hell, leaving it to him to assess
and publish their observations. Internal evidence in Hell‟s text indicates it was printed
sometime during the autumn of 1761, the last reference being to August of that year 52. By
then, Hell had received letters and printed reports stating the results of observations in Central
Europe as well as Russia, Sweden, Italy, France, Spain and even England, despite the war.
Several of the observers referred to the twenty-page monograph when they reported their
observations.53
Like his colleagues in Paris and London, Hell had used his position as Imperial and
Royal Astronomer to place orders at the urban instrument makers on behalf of astronomers
living outside Vienna, and to make sure the necessary instruments reached them before the
transit took place.54 His brief monograph with instructions should be seen in this context,
49
Hell, Transitus Veneris per discum Solis Anni 1761 … [1760].
Hell to Lacaille in Paris, 31 January 1761; Hell to Rieger in Madrid, 6 February 1761; Hell to Braun in
St. Petersburg, 8 February 1761; Hell to Chr. Mayer in Heidelberg, 9 February 1761; Messier in Paris to Hell,
[May] 1761; Poleni in Padua to Hell, 25 May 1761. In the first of these letters, to Lacaille, Hell says his work
was meant for learners in astronomy only: “Adjecta transitus Veneris per discum Solis exemplaria tuo arbitrio
inter tyrones Astronomiæ distribues, nam in horum usum solum hæc conscripta volui” = “The copies of the
Transitus Veneris per discum Solis you may distribute as you will among learners of astronomy, it is for their
sake only that I decided to write it”. In a letter dated Paris 18 April 1761, Lacaille confirms to Hell that he has
fulfilled his request. Mayer also commented on the treatise, in a letter to Hell dated Heidelberg 17 April 1761.
51
Hell, “Observatio Transitus Veneris ante discum Solis die 5ta Junii 1761. …. Adjectis Observationibus ejusdem
Transitus Veneris factis à variis per Europam Viris in observando exercitatis, cum Appendice aliarum
nonnullarum Observationum”, 1761.
52
Hell 1761, p. 89: “Anno 1761. […] mense Augusto”. Unfortunately, I have been unable to track down letters
written in the autumn/winter of 1761-62 that might have shed light on the exact date of publication (cf.
Unprinted sources, 1a and 1b).
53
Cf. Hell 1761, where Hell states his sources for the data of other observers scrupulously. Many of the
handwritten reports on the 1761 transit that were delivered to Hell are still preserved among his manuscripts at
the Wiener Universitätssternwarte (WUS Vienna).
54
Hell to Chr. Mayer in Heidelberg, 9 February, 12 March, and 10 April 1761; Hell to Ximenez in Florence,
18 February 1761; Freyherr Ehrmans zum Schlug to Hell in Vienna, dated Wezlas 8 May 1761. On the lastnamed person, see Section I.2.2.1.
50
- 205 -
whereas the memoir in the Ephemerides Astronomicae was addressed just as much to an
international community of experts.
At the time when the 1761 transit of Venus took place, Hell received a prominent guest from
Paris, the director of the Observatoire Royal, Cassini de Thury. Cassini‟s principal mission
appears to have been to initiate a rare example of international co-operation in geodesy: the
stretch of land between Paris and Vienna was to be accurately mapped. For this task, he
needed participation from astronomically skilled individuals, and active support from the
rulers of several territories.55 In Vienna, the task of co-operating in the practical work was
allotted to Hell‟s colleague, the highly experienced surveyor and director of the Jesuit
observatory, Father Joseph Liesganig (or Liesganigg, 1719-1799).56 Having arrived in May,
Cassini stayed long enough to observe the transit of Venus from Liesganig‟s observatory,
with members of the imperial family present.57
In Vienna, the 1761 transit was visible only in the early hours of the morning of 6 June. Hell‟s
observatory was not advantageously situated for this observation because high buildings
blocked part of the view to the east. Nonetheless, three Jesuit observers were present at that
site. The Imperial Astronomer himself, however, took up his position in a tower of the Jesuit
library nearby.58 All these sites of observation lay within a couple hundred metres of each
other and provided the astronomical community with independent data from a total of nine
observers from virtually the same geographical point.59 What is important to note, however, is
the fact that – with one exception, Liesganig – none of the professional observers in Vienna
managed to observe the interior contact of egress, due to clouds. All they could see were parts
of the planet‟s path across the Sun‟s disc, as well as the moment of exterior contact. Hell
therefore had no personal experience of the “black-drop effect” to draw upon when he was to
observe the next transit of Venus in Vardø.
55
See for example Widmalm 1990b; Dumont & Débarbat 1996; Moutchnik 2006, pp. 86-90.
Letter from Hell to Lalande in Paris, dated Vienna 12 June 1761 (reproduced in Aspaas 2010a). On Liesganig,
see Section I.2.2.1.
57
Cassini de Thury, “Observation du passage de Vénus sur le Soleil, Faite à Vienne en Autriche” 1763; cf. Hell
1761, pp. 17-20 & 41. Maor‟s claim that Cassini de Thury observed the transit from the “from the comfortable
quarters of the Vienna Observatory” in the company of “the observatory‟s director, Father Maximilian Hell”
(Maor 2000, p. 87; repeated by Steinicke & Brüggenthies 2004, p. 78) is mistaken.
58
Hell 1761, pp. 1-20, here p. 1.
59
I am indebted to Prof. Maria G. Firneis of Wiener Universitätssternwarte for information concerning the
positions of these historical sites (guided tour during the conference “Astronomie in Wien: 250 Jahre Eröffnung
der Universitätssternwarte”, 29 September – 1 October 2006).
56
- 206 -
II.1.4 FATHER HELL ON LESSONS TO BE DRAWN FROM THE 1761 TRANSIT
Maximilianus Hell‟s report on the 1761 transit of Venus is not only impressive for the sheer
number of observations compiled. In this memoir – as well as in other writings – Hell also
includes remarks concerning various lessons to be drawn from the transit.
One conspicuous element of the transits of Venus, which had already been noted by the two
amateur astronomers who observed the transit of 1639, was that the planet‟s size appeared to
be considerably larger in the night sky than it did in front of the Sun during a transit. In fact,
observers of the transit reported that Venus appeared to have a diameter of less than one arc
minute; most micrometer determinations gave about 58 seconds, or just short of a hundredth
part of the Sun‟s disc. In the nights before and after the transit, however, Venus appeared in
the sky as a bright star of approximately 1 arc minute and 17 seconds, 60 or almost 33% larger
than when viewed against the disc of the Sun. What could be the cause of this sudden
diminution? Hell discusses various hypotheses that might explain the phenomenon and
concludes that it was most likely to be caused by a certain optic tendency, causing dark
objects to appear smaller when viewed against a light background and light objects to appear
larger in front of a dark background. This tendency, combined with other optical factors
caused by the lenses of the astronomical tubes and the smoked glasses that were used for
observations of the Sun, seemed to Hell to be the most likely factor explaining the change of
size of Venus. Further research was needed, however, and his wording in this context is very
cautious.61
In the autumn of 1761, Hell stated that it was impossible to determine the parallax of the Sun,
since observations from other continents had not yet reached Europe. On the basis of the
observations known to him, however, he presented a tentative determination of what the
position of Venus on the Sun would have been, if seen from the centre of the Earth.62 Two
years later, when all the world-wide observations had reached him, he was to conclude that
the solar parallax was probably somewhere around 9 seconds.63 As to the adjustment of the
nodes of the planet‟s orbit, Hell used various observations of the path of Venus across the
Sun‟s disc to determine the coming transits of Venus in the years 1769 and 1874 as seen from
the centre of the Earth. He also calculated the visibility of the solar eclipse that was to take
60
Hell 1761, pp. 24-25, 99-100.
Cf. Hell 1761, pp. 24-28.
62
Hell 1761, pp. 29-32.
63
See above, footnote 36.
61
- 207 -
place on 4 June 1769.64 Other lessons to be drawn from the transit, such as the possibility of
an atmosphere surrounding Venus, were mentioned in some of the reports compiled by Hell,
who allowed the observers speak for themselves on this issue, although he concluded early on
in his memoir that the planet was not at all likely to have an atmosphere.65
A final lesson that could be drawn from the transit was that Venus probably had no moon.
From time to time, various astronomers had argued its existence, among them the Conseiller
au Grand Conseil Armand-Henri Baudouin de Guemadeuc (1734/37-1817). In a lecture held
at the Académie Royale des Sciences in Paris on 20 May 1761 and printed immediately
afterwards, Baudouin reported observations made by his friend Jacques Montaigne (1716-?)
in Limoges, who had seen a gleaming object beside Venus on four occasions earlier the same
month. Montaigne – and his patron Baudouin – interpreted this as the much-sought moon of
Venus.66 The most likely appearance of such an object as a moon of Venus would be a minute
spot somewhere on the disc of the Sun just before, during or after the transit. Many looked for
it, but no one reported having seen such a thing.67 Even so, Hell remained silent about the
possible existence (or non-existence) of this moon in his report of 1761.68
In 1765, however, a refutation of all “observations” of the moon of Venus as optical illusions,
nothing more, was issued in Vienna with the title „On the Moon of Venus‟ (De Satellite
64
Hell 1761, pp. 110-115.
Hell 1761, pp. 21, 26.
66
The full title was Mémoire sur la découverte du Satellite de Venus, & sur les Nouvelles Observations qui
viennent d’être faites à ce sujet; Lu à l’Academie Royale des Sciences le 20 Mai 1761. On this memoir and its
reception, see now Kragh 2008, espec. pp. 44-56. To his references may be added Krünitz, “Verzeichniß der
vornehmsten Schriften von der Venus und dem Merkur…” 1769, espec. p. 119 and Marlot 2004, pp. 101-104.
Since Kragh‟s account is based almost exclusively on printed sources, it may also be worth mentioning here that
Baudouin‟s memoir is referred to – without criticism – by Hell already in his letter to Lalande, dated Vienna 12
June 1761. It is also mentioned in his printed report on the transit (Hell 1761, p. 38), but without any negative
comments.
67
See for example Ferner‟s report of observations in the Paris region in a letter to the Royal Society of London,
dated 20 June 1761 and published in the Philosophical Transactions (Ferner 1762, p. 225), and Wargentin‟s
assessment of the results of the Swedish Venus transit observations in the proceedings of the Swedish Royal
Academy of Sciences (Wargentin 1761b, p. 179 = 1764b, pp. 177-178). For further references, see Kragh 2008.
68
In the Transitus Veneris per discum Solis, however, Hell asks observers to look for a small spot crossing the
disc of the Sun around the same time as Venus (Hell [1760], p. [10]): “Denique […] tam pridie observationis,
quam ipsa die Transitus, discus Solis sæpius contemplandus erit, an non fortassis alia quæpiam macula minor, &
bene rotunda sive in eandem, sive in contrariam motui Veneris partem, attamen aut motu Veneris celeriore, aut
saltem æquali (sed non tardiore) lata in disco Solis conspiciatur, quam maculam dicto motu præditam, satellitem
Veneris esse oporteret, qualem nonnulli se quondam in aliis circumstantiis vidisse putabant” = “Finally, both on
the day preceding the transit, as well as on the day of the transit itself, the disc of the Sun should be investigated
frequently, to see whether perhaps some smaller, perfectly round spot is there to be seen on the disc of the Sun, a
spot moving either in the same or the opposite direction as Venus, but at a speed either exceeding, or at least
equalling – certainly not trailing behind – that of Venus. Such a spot, moving in such a way, should represent the
moon of Venus, which various observers believe they have seen long ago, under other circumstances”.
65
- 208 -
Veneris). The author of this rather sensational publication was Maximilianus Hell. There were
two factors that had led him to publish this work, he explained. One was that he, a few years
back, had presented his thoughts on the non-existence of the “Venus moon” in a letter to
Lacaille, his formal contact at the Académie Royale in Paris. After Lacaille‟s death in 1762,
this letter had been transferred to the hands of others and Hell felt unhappy that the
preliminary thoughts he had intended to ventilate to Lacaille alone were now being discussed
by several savants in France. The other factor was that, in 1764, another set of “observations”
of the “Venus moon” – this time from Copenhagen – had been published. And since even
Baudouin now urged Hell to publish his work, the time was ripe for an elaborate memoir on
the subject.69 Hell‟s argumentation was based on experiments whereby he had succeeded in
creating optical illusions, where a tiny, illusory bright spot was produced beside a larger, real
gleaming object, viewed through a tube in a dark chamber. Most astronomers realised that
with this, the case was settled. As one reviewer remarked about Father Hell‟s scharfsinnigen
Bemerkungen und Versuchen (“sagacious remarks and experiments”), “It is a shame that
moon of Venus has disappeared: some of the jokers here had already decided to call it by the
witty name of „Cupid‟”70. In 1768, Hell‟s memoir was reissued in the Nova Acta Eruditorum
of Leipzig.71 Even so, there were observers looking for traces of this moon during the 1769
transit as well, again with no success since – as we now know – Venus has no moon.72
The debate on the notorious “moon of Venus” was soon followed by another one, in which
Father Hell was also involved. As mentioned, Hell had added as a sequel to his 1761 memoir
69
Hell 1765, pp. 3-15. See Section II.2.3 for more on the Danish observations.
Krünitz, “Verzeichniß der vornehmsten Schriften von der Venus und dem Merkur, und dem Durchgange
dieser Planeten durch die Sonnenscheibe” 1769, pp. 117-118: “Es ist Schade, daß dieser Mond der Venus
verschwunden ist; unsere witzigen Köpfe hatten bereits einen artigen Namen, nämlich Cupido, für ihn
bestimmet.”
71
Cf. Nova Acta Eruditorum … Anno MDCCLXVIII, pp. 49-126.
72
The observers organised by the Russian Academy in 1769 were given specific orders to look for the moon of
Venus, cf. Rumovskii 1771, p. 45. Thus, Chr. Mayer in his report on the Venus transit of 1769 explains that he
has been on the lookout for the moon of Venus, but has seen no trace of it (Mayer 1769a, p. 559). In the more
elaborate treatise adressed to Catherine II, however, he denies the existence of this moon (Mayer 1769b, p. 285;
cf. p. 140). Likewise, the Uppsala astronomers Erik (Eric) Prosperin (1739-1803) and Fredrik (Fredric) Mallet
(1728-1797) looked for the moon of Venus in 1769, but saw no trace of it (Prosperin 1769, pp. 158-159; Mallet
1769, pp. 222-223). Also the British observers seem to have been instructed to look for the moon of Venus in
1769, cf. Kragh 2008, p. 58. Despite the universal failure to see such a thing as a moon besides Venus on the
Sun‟s disc, the debate arose again in the mid-1770s when an astronomer at the Berlin Academy of Sciences,
Johann Heinrich Lambert (1728-1777), produced an article criticising Hell‟s monograph (“Essai d‟une théorie du
satellite de Vénus” 1775) and even went as far as announcing, in the Berliner Astronomischen Jahrbuch for the
years 1777-78, that the moon of Venus would be visible in front of the Sun on 1 June 1777. Hell refutes this
prediction in the Eph.Astr. Anni 1777 (published 1776), p. 7. He also mentions Lambert‟s prediction
unfavourably in some of his letters (see the letters to Fixlmillner, dated Vienna 31 August 1776, 27 November
1776, and 15 February 1777; published with comments by Rabenalt 1986, pp. 119-123). See also Kragh 2008,
espec. pp. 80-84 for further sources.
70
- 209 -
some remarks concerning the visibility of Venus during the coming transits of 1769 and 1874.
One of his conclusions was that the 1769 transit was not going to be visible in Vienna,
because the Sun would then be below the horizon. This conclusion was not obvious to every
contemporaneous astronomer, however. The French astronomer Claude-Étienne Trebuchet
(1722-1784), for example, was of the opinion that the 1769 transit would be visible in Vienna.
When Trebuchet in 1764 published a work in which he argued against the conclusions of
Hell, this provoked a brief review by the Vienna astronomer in the appendix of his
Ephemerides.73 Trebuchet, for his part, defended his position in a lengthy letter that was
published in the Journal des Sçavans for October 1766. This in turn elicited another answer
from Hell, a summary of which was published in the Journal des Sçavans for August 1767.
The debate continued at least until 1770, even though the outcome had proven Hell to be
right: the 1769 transit of Venus was indeed not visible in Vienna.74 However, although the
core of the debate was a disagreement on the exact orbit of Venus, it soon also involved the
existence (or non-existence) of the “moon of Venus”, the feasibility of solar eclipses for
longitude determination, the methods of Halley and Delisle for computing the solar parallax,
the correct interpretation of a Mappemonde of the transit of 1769 that had been published by
Lalande, and so on.75 This Trebuchet was one of the calculatory assistants of Lalande at the
Connoissance des Temps76 and the whole debate might be seen to indicate a build-up of
tension between Lalande and his Viennese counterpart. Was Lalande sending Trebuchet into
the field to defend the reputation of the Connoissance versus its main rival, the Ephemerides,
edited by Father Hell? The evidence to hand is too scanty to say for sure.
It should be evident that as the transit of 1769 approached, Father Hell was becoming an
influential figure in contemporary astronomy. Not only was he known as the calculator of an
almanac of a high standard, and the compiler of others‟ observations, he had also –
as illustrated in his writings concerning the theory of Venus – discussed several of the central
themes of theoretical astronomy and had dared to contest the theories of others. He was
73
Hell, “Observatio Litteraria”, in Eph.Astr. Anni 1765, 1764.
Trebuchet, “Lettre à Messieurs les auteurs du Journal des Sçavans sur les passages du Vénus, & sur l‟Eclipse
de Soleil arrivée en 1764”, in Journal des Sçavans 1766; Hell, “Extrait d‟une lettre du R. P. Hell […] sur le
passage de Vénus observé en 1761”, in Journal des Sçavans 1767; Trebuchet, Lettre à Messieurs les auteurs du
Journal des Sçavans sur le passage de Vénus [separate reprint, with additions], 1770. The second Lettre of
Trebuchet was – according to a handwritten message in the hand of Trebuchet on the back page of Hell‟s copy,
dated Auxerre, 16 September 1770 – written in 1768 and published in a Recueil philosophique. Only a brief
resumé appeared in the Journal des Sçavans, as late as February 1771, pp. 118-119.
75
Trebuchet 1766 & 1770; Hell 1767. See also Pingré 1769.
76
See for example Boistel 2004.
74
- 210 -
recognised as an able observer and calculator, as well as an important network figure, helping
colleagues in the provinces to obtain high-quality instruments, co-ordinating the activities of
both professional and amateur observers, and exchanging data with astronomical centres
abroad.
II.1.5 ASSESSMENT OF FATHER HELL’S ROLE IN 1761
A common starting-point for virtually all research on the eighteenth-century transits of Venus
is the study of Harry Woolf, dating from 1959. Woolf‟s tables, especially those concerning all
the successful observations from 1761 and 1769, are used extensively and the figures deduced
from them are considered to be reliable.77 In 1761, according to Woolf, data from a total of
120 individual observers contributed to the computation of the solar parallax. A considerable
proportion of these observations were published exclusively in the Ephemerides
Astronomicae of Vienna. It might be a fruitful task to compare Woolf‟s study, and in
particular his tables, with the appendix of the Ephemerides for the year 1762, in which Hell
offered a survey of observations of the transit of 1761. This may reveal new evidence for an
assessment of Hell‟s role as a „networker‟ in 1761. Furthermore, such a task might serve as a
corrective to the tables of Woolf, constructed half a century ago.
In Table 1, Hell‟s Venus transit report from 1761 is compared to the table in Woolf‟s
monograph. Woolf states that he has used “the published memoirs on the transit, the work of
J. F. Encke, who reconsidered the importance of the eighteenth-century transits of Venus in
1822, and of S. Newcomb, who did the same in 1890” in constructing his table.78
Furthermore, he informs the reader that his79
tabulation does not, in any manner, pretend to represent all the observations that
were made of the 1761 transit. Others were known to have been made in various
locations; even the name of the observer is sometimes known in these cases, but
somehow the results never found their way into the standard literature of
contemporary astronomy. […] Indeed, the data summarized in the above table
[…] represents the supply available to those who set out to calculate the solar
parallax after the transit.
77
See for example Van Helden 1995, p. 163; Maor 2000, pp. 108-109; Sellers 2001, p. 133; Marlot 2004, p. 226;
Verdun 2004, p. 6; or internet sources such as Jürgen Giesen, “Der Venusdurchgang vom 1761”
http://www.venus-transit.de/1761/index.html (accessed 10 April 2008); [anonymous], “Tableau récapitulatif des
expéditions menées pour l‟observation du passage de Vénus devant le Soleil du XVII e siècle au XIX e siècle”
http://www.imcce.fr/vt2004/fr/fiches/fiche_n21.html (accessed 2 August 2005).
78
Woolf 1959, p. 135.
79
Woolf 1969, pp. 140-141.
- 211 -
In Woolf‟s table, there is a column stating “Source”, in which Hell‟s memoir from 1761
appears on a total of 27 occasions, in nineteen instances as the only source for this
information. Had it not been for Father Hell‟s network, then, we may assume the sets of data
from these nineteen observers would never have found their way into the astronomical
literature and would have been missed by those who attempted to compute the solar parallax.
However, a careful reading of Father Hell‟s publication reveals that the number of such cases
should be even higher.
Reading through Father Hell‟s memoir, I detected several lacunae in Woolf‟s table. Observers
are mentioned and data referred to by Hell that somehow did not make it into Woolf‟s table.
At first sight, these instances might be explained away as observations in which neither the
ingress nor the egress was observed, because of clouds or other practical problems. Such
partial observations were nonetheless interesting to Hell and his contemporaries, since they
provided precious data on the size of Venus, information concerning Venus‟ position on the
Sun‟s disc at some point during the transit, etc. They were not included by Woolf, however,
because he assembled only data from which the solar parallax could be deduced. However,
this does not apply in every case. There are observations of ingress or egress referred to by
Hell that are missing from Woolf‟s table. In my table I have highlighted cases where this is
the case. Leaving aside an anonymous merchant (Mercator quidam) in a suburb of Vienna,
who used the inaccurate public clock for time-keeping, and Christian Hoffmann of Dresden,
whose observations are described as not entirely correct by Hell, we are nonetheless left with
two sites of observation entirely missing from Woolf‟s table (see under Madrid in my table).
Another feature of Woolf‟s table is that certain sites provided individual sets of data from
more than one observer. These are referred to as more than one individual observation, even
though the site of observation is the same. This has happened with Greenwich Observatory,
for example, where Bliss, Bird and Green all observed simultaneously, but without
determining the moments of contact identically. Accordingly, the same site, Greenwich,
occupies three separate enumerations in Woolf‟s table. Again, a close reading of Hell‟s
memoir reveals instances where Woolf has overlooked the fact that individual observers
provided different data from the same site. These instances are highlighted in my table as well
(see under Crembsium and Herbipolis).
- 212 -
This means that the actual number of individual observations that provided data for a
computation of the solar parallax in 1761 should be referred to not as 120, but 125. A small
adjustment, admittedly, but as we all know, “the devil is in the detail”. Of these 125 instances,
there are 25 where Father Hell‟s Ephemerides Astronomicae may well be the only source of
this information in standard astronomical literature.80 Below, this total number of individual
observations will be raised even further (Section II.2.5).
Hell‟s text is partitioned according to the designations Germania (including Austria), Gallia
(France), Anglia, Hispania, Italia, Hungaria, Polonia, Svecia (Sweden, including Finland)
and Moschovia (Russia). The nationality of the observer is considered insignificant, the place
of observation being the defining factor in most cases. Thus we find, for example, the
observations of the Austrian Jesuit Christianus Rieger (See Section I.2.2.1) referred to under
Hispania, since his site of observation was in Madrid. In Woolf there is a column listing
“National sponsor/or nationality” (=“Nationality/Sp.” in my table). This column is sometimes
left blank by Woolf, and I have made no attempt to fill in the gaps. However, I have
considered it to be of relevance to investigate how far the Jesuit network was involved in the
1761 project, and the extent to which Hell‟s memoir might be used as a source in this respect.
Indeed, data sets from 21 Jesuit observers are reported by Hell, in addition to the
observational attempts of three further Jesuits who all failed to see the crucial moments of
contact. In checking Woolf‟s table, I can find only nine of these referred to as Jesuits, one of
them (Joseph Lorand Béraud [1702-1777], observing in Lyon) even with a question mark
added. Others, such as Maximilianus Hell, are referred to as “German Jesuit”, whereas Georg
Kratz (or Kraz, 1714-1766), observing from Ingolstadt, figures as “Jesuit”. All in all, there are
eleven instances where the designation “S.J.” (or è Societate Jesu, “of the Society of Jesus”)
is used by Hell, whereas Woolf refers to the observer only as “German”, “Italian” or leaves a
blank space. Thus, Jesuits were responsible for a higher proportion of the data provided for
the computation of the parallax in 1761 than a mere glance at Woolf‟s table indicates.
80
Another point of detail that could be made here is that certain corrections have been made to the column
marked by Woolf as “Type of observation”, by me as “Obs.” Here, Woolf has used the abbreviations “I,1”, “I,2”,
“E,1”, and “E,2” to mark the exterior and interior contacts of ingress (“I”), and interior and exterior contacts of
egress (“E”). In my table, I have followed this convention. Checking the text of Hell, I have found four instances
where what were in fact entirely complete observations are referred by Woolf as incomplete (see Wargentin,
Braun, Krasil‟nikov and Kurganov towards the end of my table). In the case of Ellicot, observing from London,
only data from the interior contact of egress exists, not E,1-2 as stated by Woolf.
- 213 -
Woolf discusses the contributions of various nations in the pages following his table. 81 He
points to France taking the leading position, both quantitatively (31 observers) and
qualitatively. There then follows Sweden as number two (21 observers) and Britain as number
three (nineteen observers). Observers from German-speaking countries occupy fourth
position, with fifteen observers. “Most of these were Jesuits”, Woolf states, without
investigating the matter further.82 Similarly, fifth position is held by the Italians, with nine
observers, “the majority” of whom were Jesuits.83 Russians, Danes and Portuguese all have
three observers in Woolf‟s statistics, giving them equal status statistically. However, “[a]n
unclassified group of sixteen remains”, Woolf concludes.84 But what if we try to classify the
observers differently, paying attention to the Jesuit aspect of the project? In addition to the 21
observers explicitly labelled as Jesuits by Hell, we find in Woolf‟s table three sites of
observation in India and China that were also headed by Jesuits.85 I shall make no attempt to
draw conclusions concerning the qualitative side of the Jesuit contribution (such an
assessment should be done by, or at least in close collaboration with, professional
astronomers).86 However, it seems fair to point out that at least statistically, there is no doubt
that Jesuit science was of great importance in the Venus transit project of 1761 – in fact the
Jesuits occupy second place, beaten only by France (see, however, Section II.2.5 below). And
with Latin being the primary language of communication among members of the order, it is
perhaps also somewhat misleading to classify Jesuit observers as “German-speaking”,
“Italian-speaking”, etc., as Woolf attempts to do. True, the order was divided into assistentiae
(„Assistancies‟), which were were in turn divided into provinciae („Provinces‟), each with
their own administrations.87 Even so, examples such as the Ephemerides Astronomicae of
Hell bear witness that these divisions did not hamper communication across administrative
boundaries.
81
Cf. Woolf 1959, pp. 140-149.
Woolf 1959, p. 143.
83
Woolf 1959, p. 144.
84
Woolf 1959, p. 143.
85
Data from Jesuit observers in Peking (No. 1), Madras (No. 5), and Tranquebar (No. 6) appear in Woolf‟s table,
but these far-away observations were not mentioned by Hell (certainly because they had not yet reached Europe)
and have therefore been omitted from my table.
86
Harry Woolf, for his part, describes Maximilianus Hell‟s observation from Vienna as one of the two very best
from German-speaking countries, and the observations of Ximenez and Zanotti (both of whom were Jesuits) as
the two best from Italy (Woolf 1959, pp. 143 & 144). He does not, however, attempt to make an overall
assessment of the Jesuit contribution. See my paper delivered at The First Annual Conference for the History of
Science in Norway for more on my views on such assessments (Aspaas 2008e).
87
See Section I.2.2.1 above.
82
- 214 -
As to the number of individual observers overlooked by Woolf, I am not sure how this came
about. He seems to have had problems studying the memoir of Hell, which was written in
Latin. Though still widely taught in the mid-twentieth century, fluency in the Latin language
had waned considerably since the days of Father Hell.
Finally, a remark relating to the biographical essay (Chapter I.2) above. If we examine the
identity of the observers whose data Hell published in his 1761 survey, we find that
professional observatories were important, but not crucial to the project. True, in Vienna the
Jesuit Observatory and the Imperial Observatory were both essential, and the number of
skilled observers present at the two institutions considerable. However, Hell was also careful
to include in the project a few Viennese amateurs who were not Jesuits and who observed
from private homes. Even the observations of the amateurs Felix Ehrmans zum Schlug (father
and son) from faraway Wetzlas Castle figure in his report. Nonetheless, the imprint of Jesuit
science on Hell‟s report is far more conspicuous. As for observatories belonging to the
German Assistancy of the Society of Jesus, Hell is careful to mention the contributions of his
colleagues at observatories in Tyrnavia (Weiss), Ingolstadt (Kratz), Würzburg (Huberti and
two anonymous assistants) and Prague (Stepling) – although in the latter case observations
had failed due to clouds. Even at collegia that lacked proper observatories, Jesuits had made
observations for Hell to publish in his Ephemerides. Thus, data from Jesuits in Dillingen
(Hauser) and Labacum (Schöttl) were included in the report. A curious omission from the
report is the unsung observatory of Graecium. However, several sources presented in Section
I.2.2.1 indicate that relations between the Jesuit astronomers of Vienna and Graecium were
not as good as they could have been. Another omission is the observation of the Benedictines
at the high standard observatory of Cremifanum, where the transit was indeed observed.88
When moving beyond the German Assistancy, we find patterns of contact that are more
complex. From Spain, the Austrian Jesuit Rieger, a former colleague of Hell‟s, has provided
Hell with all necessary information. The neighbouring Italian Assistancy of the Society of
Jesus had numerous observers involved in the project, and most of these are mentioned by
name even in case where they had failed to see anything of the transit due to clouds. One may
interpret this „name-dropping‟ as a sign of Hell‟s eagerness to demonstrate the importance of
Jesuit science to the project. The close political and family relations between Habsburg-ruled
88
According to http://www.transitofvenus.nl/history.html (last accessed 6 June 2011), Fixlmillner‟s predecessor
Eugenius Dobler observed the transit “accompanied by prelate Bertholdi and other clergymen”.
- 215 -
Vienna and various Italian territories may also have influenced the Imperial Astronomer‟s
account. By contrast, activities in eastern Europe are not extolled at all. Thus, the printed
report by a Catholic professor at the Kraków Academy is dismissed as “highly imperfect”
(“valde imperfecta”).89 In Russia, a correspondent of Hell‟s, Josephus Adamus Braun,
provided data from his own private observation as well as observations made at the Imperial
Observatory in Saint Petersburg. The French presence is highly marked, but here the Jesuit
contribution is not highlighted as much as in the Italian and German Assistancies. The two
non-Catholic countries Sweden and England are surprisingly well represented in Hell‟s report.
Information concerning the English observations had been assembled by the Swedish
astronomer Bengt Ferner, who was in Paris at the time.90 He sent extracts from his
correspondence with English astronomers to Hell, who included these extracts in his report.
Information on the Swedish observations had taken another detour, to Hell‟s correspondent
Lacaille in Paris. The section on observations from Stockholm was based entirely upon a
letter from Lacaille and an article in the Journal Étranger of Paris.
One may conclude, then, that the Jesuit network was indeed helpful in establishing Father
Hell as an astronomer of international reputation. His connections in the Italian and German
Assistancies were generally quite good and helpful in providing him with a considerable
number of observations for his Venus transit report. Abroad, his contacts were still developing
as of 1761. His conspicuous status as the Imperial and Royal Astronomer of the Habsburg
territories probably counted more than his adherence to the Jesuit order, when astronomers in
places like Saint Petersburg and Paris took the bother of providing him with observations for
his journal. It is the combination of the two roles – Jesuit and court astronomer – that gave
Hell such a prominent position in the Venus transit project of 1761.
89
The report in question was surely Jacobus Niegowiecki‟s Transitus Veneris per discum Solis post peractas
revolutiones tam synodicas quàm periodicas intrà annos circiter 122. iterum anno domini 1761. die 6. Junii.
celebratus et per mathematicos universitatis Cracoviensis sub elevatione poli gr. 50. min. 12. observatus,
Cracoviae 1761 (title taken from the online catalogue of the BibliotheksVerbund Bayern). An interesting survey
in English of the history of astronomy in early-modern Poland has been provided by Bieńkowska 1972 (see pp.
88-89 on Niegowiecki).
90
Ferner was later nobled Ferrner. In the Ephemerides, his name is misspelled “Fermer”. At least by May 1761,
he was a correspondent of Hell‟s (cf. Ferrner 1956, pp. 388-390).
- 216 -
TABLE 1 HELL 1761a COMPARED TO WOOLF 1959, pp. 135-140
- 217 -
- 218 -
II.2 THE NORDIC REGIONS AND THE TRANSITS OF VENUS, 1761
AND 1769
ingen ort, hvarken i Europa, Asia eller Africa, är bättre där til [i.e., til observationer af
Veneris passage] belägen, än Svenska Lappmarken
- Pehr Wilhem Wargentin 1767 1
tanti res momenti AVGVSTAE videbatur, vt Ipsa, pro Suo incredibili in scientias omnes
amore, obseruare dignaretur, Dux expeditionum omnium, et particeps operis […]
memorando posteris exemplo, scientias et artes nuspiam melius efflorescere, quam vbi
Monarchae philosopharentur
- Christianus Mayer 1769 2
eventus attamen docuit, omnes hasce etsi sapientissimè cogitatas, quas jam recensui
Regum, Principum, Astronomorumque dispositiones, divina ita ordinante Providentia
haud sufficientes omnino futuras fuisse ad decidendam sine dubio, et cum certitudine, aut
saltem maxima cum probabilitate Quæstionem præcisæ Quantitatis Parallaxeos solis si
suasu et consilio sapientissimorum Daniæ Ministrorum Augustissimus Rex
CHRISTIANUS VII in societatem summi hujus negotij, præter opinionem omnium
aliarum Academiarum non venisset sumptibus quam maximis ad finem hunc
consequendum liberalissimè profusis, ideoque omnium hucusque recensitarum à summis
Principibus factarum Expeditionum veluti Coronidem impositurus
- Maximilianus Hell c. 1773 3
In this chapter, the broader picture of activities in the Nordic regions in conjunction with the
eighteenth-century transits of Venus will be analysed. As has already been explained
(Sections II.1.1 and II.1.2), it was desirable – from an astronomical point of view – to obtain
1
Wargentin in a letter to the Swedish King, dated 14 January 1767 (quoted from Nordenmark 1939, p. 374): “no
place in the whole of Europe, Asia or Africa is better suited [for observations of the transit] than Swedish
Lapland”.
2
Chr. Mayer 1769b, pp. 91-92: “The EMPRESS deemed that [the transit of Venus] was of such importance that
she Herself, in accordance with Her incredible love of all the sciences, deigned to observe it, as the Head of all
the expeditions and a participant in the project […], a memorable example for Posterity, that the sciences and the
arts have never flourished more than when Monarchs themselves have been philosophers”.
3
See Hell‟s unfinished introduction to the work Expeditio litteraria ad Polum arcticum (edited below, Chapter
III.3, here §. IV): “It turned out that, notwithstanding all the wise and careful planning of kings, princes and
astronomers recounted so far, divine providence would have rendered all their efforts entirely insufficient for the
attainment of their goal. A precise definition of the Sun‟s parallax, that is, a definition beyond any doubt,
associated with all certitude or at least with the highest possible degree of probability, would not have been
possible if it were not for the Supreme King CHRISTIAN the SEVENTH, who followed the advice of
Denmark‟s highest ministers and entered among the participants in this extremely important entreprise. To the
surprise of all other academies, His Highness donated the highest possible sums for the attainment of this goal as
if to snatch the crown of all the expeditions launched by the mightiest princes so far reviewed.”
- 219 -
data from stations located as far apart as possible, a fact which rendered observations from the
European High North valuable in themselves. This was particularly true for the transit of 1769
because that transit took place during the European night, making it necessary to dispatch
observers to the regions of the midnight sun in order to catch the entire duration of the
phenomenon. As a result, these parts received considerable attention from the international
astronomical community.
Politically speaking, the Nordic mainland nowadays consists of four independent states:
Denmark and Sweden, as well as Norway and Finland. During the 1760s, however, these
territories were all administrated from Copenhagen and Stockholm. Thus, as far as the Venus
transits are concerned, the Royal Danish Society of Sciences in Copenhagen and the Royal
Swedish Academy of Sciences in Stockholm were the natural co-ordinators of expeditions
and other activities in the Nordic countries as a whole. The Russian Empire further included
territories that were strategically important for observations of the Venus transit. In 1769, the
Imperial Russian Academy of Sciences in St. Petersburg organised expeditions to the Kola
Peninsula, close to the borders with Norway and Finland. In the same year, the Royal Society
of London, with the permission of the Danish authorities also dispatched observers to
Hammerfest and Honningsvåg in northernmost Norway. All these activities will be analysed
below.
The Faroe Islands, Iceland, Greenland, Spitsbergen and Bear Island also merit a mention in
this context as potential sites for observations. For various reasons, however, no observations
took place here. Mainland Fennoscandia4 therefore constitutes the main focus of the present
analysis.
Awareness of the Venus transit activities of Sweden, Russia and Britain, close to or even
within Danish-Norwegian territory, may be revealing for a number of reasons. First and
4
„Fennoscandia‟ is a convenient term for designating the Scandinavian countries – Denmark, Norway and
Sweden – without excluding Finland, Karelia and the Kola Peninsula. The term „Nordic regions‟ is less clearcut,
especially if the parlance of the eighteenth century is taken into account (see for example Kliemann 2005). Thus,
August Ludwig Schlözer (1735-1809) in his Allgemeine Nordische Geschichte 1771, includes nearly the whole
of the Russian Empire (St. Petersburg, Moscow, Siberia, etc.) in his concept of Norden (“the North”). Likewise,
the editor of the Nordische Miscellaneen, published in Riga in the years 1781-1791, in the preface to the first
volume expresses his intention to publish articles on “Russia, Livonia, Estonia and Courland” (“von Rußland,
Lief= Ehst= und Kurland”: August Wilhelm Hupel, “Vorerinnerung”, in Nordische Miscellaneen erstes Stuck,
1781, p. 4; cf. pp. 5-6, where Hupel mentions Sweden, Denmark and even Poland as “Nordic” powers). I have
used the term „Nordic regions‟ as a somewhat ambigious heading to this section in order not to exclude activities
in Russia as a whole from the analysis, although Fennoscandia will remain the main focus.
- 220 -
foremost, the history of activities in this region has been under-investigated in previous
studies of eighteenth-century transits of Venus, particularly in literature written in French or
English.5 The general impression gained from reading the international literature is that the
Venus transit projects of the 1760s were primarily French and British undertakings. We have
already witnessed Maximilianus Hell‟s substantial contribution to the Venus transit project of
1761. Considering the overarching theme of this part of the thesis – the eighteenth-century
transits of Venus and the role of Maximilianus Hell – a detailed analysis of activities in
Denmark and Norway in both 1761 and 1769 is required in order to contextualise the Vardø
expedition in 1769 (to be analysed in Chapter II.3). The story of activities in the DanishNorwegian kingdom cannot be properly understood, however, without taking the regional
dimension into account. Thus, this chapter will employ a comparative perspective, analysing
Venus transit activities in Sweden, Finland and Russia, as well as Denmark-Norway proper,
in both 1761 and 1769.
The elite ideology of the time measured an empire‟s „greatness‟ not only in its military
capacity and economic strength, but also in its participation in the intellectual and cultural
progress of the world. Beacons of the Enlightenment, like Voltaire, corresponded overtly with
sovereigns abroad, helping them to build up an image as „Philosophical Princes‟. Given the
widespread interest in the passages of Venus, and especially the rush of anticipation for the
second chance of determining the solar parallax in 1769, it was a matter of national pride to
be at the forefront of this international project. The nationality of the observer was not what
was at stake. As we shall see, Russia recruited astronomers from other countries for the year
1769. Their observations were nonetheless classified as “Russian”, for at the end of the day,
the sponsor received no modest share in the honour. Thus, when Denmark-Norway recruited a
man with the title of Imperial and Royal Astronomer of Vienna, his expedition was
5
Thus, while the activities of French and British astronomers are a recurrent theme in the 258-page monograph
of Woolf 1959, he has devoted only a few pages to Swedish (pp. 142-143 & 182), Danish (p. 144; pp. 176-178
on Hell‟s expedition) and Russian astronomy (pp. 144-145 & 179-181). The same applies to more recent works
by Maor 2000 (pp. 88-91 on Lomonosov; pp. 126-133 on Hell‟s expedition); Sellers 2001 (pp. 140-142 on Hell‟s
expedition); and Marlot 2004 (pp. 159-162 on Lomonosov; p. 168 on Hell‟s expedition); cf. the articles of
Chapman 1998 (not a word about activities in Fennoscandia), Verhas 2001 (a single sentence on expeditions in
Norway, Sweden and Russia 1761, a couple of sentences about Hell‟s expedition, but nothing about other
activities in Fennoscandia in 1769) and Hudon 2004 (Hell‟s expedition mentioned, but nothing about other
activities in Fennoscandia either in 1761 or 1769). Furthermore, the sets of articles edited by Brosche et al. in
1998 and Kurtz in 2005 encompass activities in several countries, but there is no word about Venus transit
activities in Fennoscandia (although the article of Marov in Kurtz 2005 is devoted to Lomonosov). It might also
be mentioned that the massive success of Bill Bryson, A Short History of Nearly Everything (1st edn. 2003), has
four pages on the eighteenth-century transits of Venus, but elaborates only on British and French participants in
the project (Bryson 2004, pp. 79-82).
- 221 -
nonetheless categorised as a “Danish” undertaking. The system of scientific funding in the
ancien régime is reminiscent of that of patrons and clients in the field of belles letters: a
poet‟s work was routinely dedicated to a Mæcenas (patron of the arts), and the Mæcenas was
highly likely to be a prince.6 Similarly, as patrons of science, princes expected to receive
praise and dedications from the savants whose activities they sponsored.
To the picture of „national pride‟ belongs the notion of publicity – in particular, publicity
within the international Republic of Letters. Thus, the history of Venus transit publications
from the Nordic regions will form part of the analysis in this chapter. In present-day science,
the use of English is predominant. During the eighteenth century, however, the only language
that could compete with the widespread use of Latin was French. True, large numbers of
European savants born east of the 5th degree of longitude and north of the 45th degree of
latitude were fluent in German, but use of this language for scientific purposes was not yet as
widespread as it was to become in subsequent centuries. Thus, science periodicals in Latin
and French were read all over the European continent, and even those who had grown up in
German-speaking countries tended to communicate with each other in either French or Latin,
instead of their mother tongue. Given this historical situation, paying attention to the language
used for the publication of reports on the Venus transits may be illuminating.
If we turn to the tables of Woolf (compare Section II.1.5), we find that Sweden delivered
substantial contributions to the Venus transit projects of the 1760s, whereas the participation
from Denmark-Norway was significantly weaker.7 A cross-check with the primary sources
will lead to a number of corrections to Woolf‟s tables, in the same manner as has already been
done using Hell‟s Ephemerides Astronomicae above. However, the general picture will be
seen to hold true. Over the pages that follow, a number of factors contributing to the
inequality of the quantitative – as well as qualitative – contributions of the two Fennoscandian
states will be discussed.
One important theoretical perspective for this chapter is that of „dilettantism‟. This
perspective has already been described in Section I.1.2.1 above, and has been used to some
extent in Chapter I.2. In this chapter, however, it will be used in a more systematic manner, to
6
See, for example, Roger Chartier‟s article “Princely Patronage and the Economy of Dedication” 1995. This
practice appears to have been particularly common in eighteenth-century Denmark, cf. Rem 2005, pp. 117-118.
7
Cf. Woolf 1959, pp. 135-140 & 182-187.
- 222 -
analyse the degree of success or failure in the Venus transit programmes of the various Nordic
countries. In the context of the Venus transits, the degree of integration or exclusion of
amateurs in various countries appears not to have been explored before.8 In the present
comparison of activities in Denmark-Norway, Sweden-Finland and Russia, this aspect will
receive particular attention, as such an approach appears to be well suited to explain some of
the differences between the various countries.
Individual historical actors and their role as possible explanatory factors in tracing the causes
of historical events make up a final analytical approach in this chapter. The infrastructure for
science in early modern Europe was, despite numerous epoch-making achievements, still
dependent upon a limited number of professionals holding key positions. Sometimes, as we
have already seen in the case of Maximilianus Hell (Chapters I.2 and II.1), such individuals
might exert their influence in ways that promoted scientific activities well beyond the
University cities in which their place of work was located. In other cases, however,
individuals holding central positions might neglect to promote research in their own country
and scorn international developments within the international research community, thereby
causing stagnation. Paying attention to the significance of historical actors in science is
crucial in order to explain differing national contexts, not least in the case of international
research projects such as the Venus transits.
Starting with an account of the Venus transit activities of Sweden in 1761 and 1769
(Section II.2.1), this chapter proceeds to examine activities in Russia in both 1761 and 1769
(Section II.2.2), and the activities of Denmark in 1761 (Section II.2.3). There then follows an
analysis of the significance of activities in Denmark and Norway in 1769 (Section II.2.4),
with a subsection on the outcome of observational attempts on Danish and Norwegian soil in
the same year (Section II.2.4.1). A final section aims to sum up the results of these analyses
from the perspective of modern literature on the eighteenth-century transits of Venus
(Section II.2.5). While many of the printed sources for this chapter may be familiar to
historians of eighteenth-century astronomy, the majority of the unprinted sources have not, to
the best of my knowledge, been used in previous research into the eighteenth-century transits
of Venus.
8
Aspaas 2011a (in Norwegian) is an exception.
- 223 -
II.2.1
THE ROLE OF SWEDEN IN THE VENUS TRANSIT PROJECTS,
1761 AND 1769
The author of the „History of Astronomy in Sweden‟, N. V. E. Nordenmark, has carried out
thorough research on Swedish eighteenth-century astronomy and its main protagonists.9
According to his studies, Swedish astronomy was integrated in the international, astronomical
community by Anders (Andreas) Celsius (1701–1744), who was named Professor of
Astronomy at Uppsala in 1730. Shortly afterwards, Celsius embarked upon a four-year
journey through Germany, Italy, France and England, where he visited the main centres of
learning and was elected a member of various academies and scientific societies. He then
joined Pierre Louis Moreau de Maupertuis (1698–1759) on his famous 1736-1737 expedition
to Lapland and appears to have been instrumental in persuading Maupertuis to opt for the
Swedish Tornedal valley instead of northern Norway or Iceland for his longitudinal
measurements.10 As a result of this expedition, the Earth was proven to be flattened near the
poles, not stretched, as the Cartesians had thought.11
The process of integrating Swedish astronomy within the Republic of Letters was continued
by the next generation of astronomers, of whom Pehr (Petrus) Wilhelm Wargentin (1717–
1783) merits particular mention. His thesis „On the Moons of Jupiter‟ (De Satellitibus Jovis),
supported under the presidency of Celsius in 1741, marked the start of what was to become a
main activity throughout his career: diligent observations and theoretical work on the moons
of Jupiter. The accuracy of Wargentin‟s observations made them useful for longitude
determinations of numerous sites abroad. Even more importantly, Wargentin was also the
secretary of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences from 1749 until his death in 1783, and
corresponded with influential representatives of the entire Republic of Letters. Wargentin was
to become heavily involved in the international effort to determine the parallaxes of the
Moon, Mars and Venus in the early 1750s, when the Académie Royale des Sciences in Paris
sent the astronomer Lacaille to the Cape of Good Hope and collaborated with colleagues in
Germany, Italy and Sweden in order to obtain corresponding observations from roughly the
9
For this section I have used Nordenmark, Astronomiens historia i Sverige inntil år 1800, Uppsala 1959 and the
same author‟s Pehr Wilhelm Wargentin …, Uppsala 1939. Nordenmark has also written monographs on other
Swedish eighteenth-century astronomers. His mastery of Latin, German, French and English, aside from
Swedish, combined with a magisterial use of archival as well as library sources, render his studies indispensable.
Other major studies of the history of Swedish astronomy in the period have been made by Lindroth and
Widmalm; see also Sinnerstad 1989 and the works of Pihlaja (cf. Section I.1.1.3 above).
10
For a survey of the life and career of Celsius, see Nordenmark 1959, pp. 158-191.
11
See for example Terrall 1992. When Maupertuis came under attack for his theory, Celsius was one of those
who went into the field to defend his findings, cf. Nordenmark 1959, pp. 174-176.
- 224 -
same meridian. For this occasion, Wargentin organised observations from various sites in
Sweden and managed to provide valuable data.12 He thus naturally became an important coordinator of activities in connection with the transits of Venus in the decade that followed.
For the 1761 transit, the Academy of Stockholm distributed astronomical equipment to a total
of five local academies and colleges throughout the country. Recognising the importance of
obtaining data from the far North, it also organised observations in the northern parts of
Sweden and Finland. Thus, it financed an expedition to Cajaneborg (or Kajana, Kajaani) led
by the astronomer, later Professor of Physics at the Royal Academy of Åbo (Turku) in
Finland, Anders (Andreas) Planman (1724–1803), and gave financial support to the amateur
astronomer Anders Hellant (1717–1789) in Torneå (Haparanda, Tornio), both of whom
succeeded in observing the transit.13 The weather was evidently good over large parts of
Sweden that day, resulting in a series of successful observations. At the academy‟s
observatory in Stockholm, Wargentin and a crew of trained observers received numerous
guests outside the field of science, among them the Crown Prince and Princess of Sweden.
The noise from the spectators created a nuisance, but at the same time, allowing the public to
witness the activities at the observatory was no doubt good PR for the academy.14
After the event, lessons to be drawn from the phenomenon were discussed in great detail by
Swedish mathematicians. Planman published at least four attempts to calculate the solar
parallax;15 the possibility of an atmosphere around Venus was discussed by Planman,
12
In 1751-52 the same phenomena were observed simultaneously in at least six countries; Lacaille made
observations at the Cape of Good Hope, Eustachio Zanotti in Bologna, A. N. Grischow in St. Petersburg, the
young Lalande in Berlin in collaboration with German astronomers, and a total of five observers – among them
Wargentin – from various places in Sweden. Furthermore, James Bradley (1693-1762) reported observations
from London and several French astronomers observed in France. Initially, Delisle had planned to go to
Stockholm himself, but seeing that Wargentin intended to make every effort to provide corresponding
observations, he deemed it unnecessary to make this trip (HARS 1752 [1756], pp. 103-110; Zanotti 1757;
pp. 311-324; Grischow 1761; cf. Nordenmark 1939, pp. 164-171; Nordenmark 1959, pp. 221-223; Aspaas
2008b, pp. 289-290).
13
Nordenmark 1939, pp. 175-176. As for Planman, he had in fact planned to travel further north, but found
himself prevented by heavy snowfall from getting any further than Cajaneborg with all his travel gear, see
Planman, Dissertatio de Venere in Sole visa die 6 Junii anni 1761 … 1763a, pp. 2-3; cf. Holmberg 2008
(presenting extensive quotations from a letter of Planman to Wargentin, in which Planman gives a detailed
account of the journey).
14
Nordenmark 1939, pp. 176-178; cf. Mejer 2004.
15
Planman 1763a, pp. 9-22; Observationes in calculum Dni De La Lande, Hujus anni Ephemer. Gallic. p. 206
contentum ... 1764a; Investigatio Parallaxeos Solis ex observationibus novissimi transitus Veneris per discum
Solarem ... 1766; “A Determination of the Solar Parallax attempted, by a peculiar Method, from the
Observations of the last Transit of Venus ...” (paper written in 1767) 1769. Summaries of some of these
calculations also appeared in the Kungl. Vetenskaps Academiens Handlingar – cf. Planman 1763b; 1764b.
- 225 -
Wargentin and others;16 the “black drop effect” was described and its possible causes assessed
in several reports,17 and so on. The reports were first published in Swedish in the proceedings
of the Royal Academy of Stockholm, but – thanks to the assiduous correspondence of
Wargentin – summaries soon appeared in French and Latin as well, in prestigious periodicals
abroad.18 As a matter of routine, the Swedish reports were also translated and reissued in a
German edition of the Kungl. Svenska Vetenskapsacademiens Handlingar published in
Hamburg and Leipzig. If we turn to the study of Woolf, we are informed that in 1761, Sweden
organised in total 21 successful observations from twelve stations, eleven of them within the
borders of Finland or Sweden. “Surprisingly enough the Swedes […] displace the British
from the second position which one would have expected them to occupy, for the British
could muster only nineteen successful observations”, Woolf comments, adding that “the
displacement seems to be one of quality”.19 Thus, with the 1761 transit of Venus Sweden had
placed itself in the heart of the international entreprise, both quantitatively and qualitatively.
As a country, it was beaten only by France, with its 31 successful observations – according to
Woolf – published in the standard literature of contemporary astronomy.
As the 1769 transit approached, Wargentin and his colleagues at the Royal Swedish Academy
decided to apply for extra financial support. They had done the same for the lunar parallax
project of 1751-52, but not for the Venus transit of 1761, when the Academy had found the
necessary funding from its own treasuries.20 For the project of 1769, however, expectancies
were even greater than for the first. Besides, due to a rise in the cost of paper, the expenses of
the Academy had risen substantially since the beginning of the decade, whilst its income had
not increased. Accordingly, on 14 January 1767, an application for the funding of expeditions
and acquisition of instruments was sent to the King of Sweden. In the application, appeals to
national pride are vividly emphasised.21 French and British astronomers had already informed
the Academy that they had started to plan expeditions and appoint observers, and as “no place
in the whole of Europe, Asia or Africa is better suited [for observations of the transit] than
Swedish Lapland”, it was a matter of national prestige to have able observers ready at more
16
See Section I.1.1 above.
Cf. Nordenmark 1939, pp. 178-181. See also Fig. 7 above.
18
See the summaries of Swedish observations in issues of the Journal des Sçavans (Paris), the Ephemerides
Astronomicae (Vienna; see above, Section II.1.5), and the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society
(London) from this period.
19
Woolf 1959, p. 141.
20
Nordenmark 1939, p. 175.
21
A transcription of the entire application is found in Wargentin 1939, pp. 374-376; cf. pp. 183-186.
17
- 226 -
than one place in this region.22 To this end, money was required, both for the purchase of new
instruments and to cover the expenses of the expeditions themselves, the application argued.
And money was indeed granted: as early as 29 January 1767, the government bestowed upon
the Academy an extra grant for this purpose. Thus, the Swedish astronomers were able to start
their preparations nearly two and a half years ahead of the transit. Three observations were to
be prepared in the north of Sweden and Finland: Torneå, Pello and Cajaneborg. The locations
were chosen because their geographical position had already been accurately determined;
Torneå by Hellant through many years of observations, Pello by Maupertuis and his team in
1736-37 and Cajaneborg by Planman in conjunction with the Venus transit of 1761.23 At the
same time, observations in southern parts of the kingdom were to be prepared as well.
In the event, only one of the stations in the Swedish North was lucky enough to observe the
moments of ingress and egress: clouds spoiled the attempts in both Torneå and Pello.24
Observers further south in Sweden and Finland had better luck, but they were only able to
observe the ingress in the evening, the egress taking place before sunrise. Reports of
observations from various parts of Sweden were included in the proceedings of the Royal
Swedish Academy (originals in Swedish, German translations appearing as well), and in Latin
and French in periodicals such as Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London
and the Journal des Sçavans. According to Woolf, the Swedish Academy managed to coordinate in total fifteen individual observations at six stations where at least part of the transit
was successfully observed.25 In the aftermath of 1769, attempts to compute the solar parallax
and theories concerning the planet itself were also put forward by Swedish academicians, just
like after the previous transit.26 All in all, Woolf concludes that “Swedish activity in 1769
remain[ed] at about the same level at which it had been in 1761, with highly competent
astronomers observing from important northern stations”.27
22
Application to the King of Sweden, dated 14 January 1767 (Nordenmark 1939, p. 374): “ingen ort, hvarken i
Europa, Asia eller Africa, är bättre där til belägen, än Svenska Lappmarken”.
23
Cf. Wargentin “Berättelse, om de anstalter, som varit gjorda i Sverige, at observera Planeten Venus i Solen,
den 3 Junii 1769 […]” 1769, pp. 148-150.
24
Wargentin 1769, pp. 150-151; F. Mallet, “Berättelse om det som kunnat observerats uti Pello, vid Veneris
gång förbi Solen, den 3 och 4 Junii 1769” 1769.
25
Woolf 1959, pp. 182-187.
26
Cf. Nordenmark 1939, pp. 188-192. See also Section II.3.4 below.
27
Woolf 1959, p. 189.
- 227 -
II.2.2
THE ROLE OF RUSSIA IN THE VENUS TRANSIT PROJECTS,
1761 AND 1769
In 1761, Russian activity was limited. Several studies have pointed out that this period was
marked by conflicts within the Academy between Russian-speaking and foreign (mainly
German-speaking) members.28 Initially, the Imperial Russian Academy‟s plans for the 1761
transit included only a single Venus transit expedition, which was to be dispatched to Siberia.
Doubts were raised, however, as to whether the Academy actually had any qualified observers
to hand for this task. Archival studies by Michel Mervaud and others have disclosed that early
in 1760, these doubts were voiced in a letter from Gerhard Friedrich Müller (1705-1783), a
historian/ethnographer and prominent member of the Imperial Academy in St. Petersburg, to
the astronomer Lacaille, a no less prominent member of the Royal Academy in Paris. 29 The
academicians in Paris apparently interpreted this as an implicit request for them to send
someone to Russia and appointed an assistant at the Observatoire Royal, Jean Chappe
d‟Auteroche (also called l‟Abbé Chappe, 1728-1769) to this task. His destination was to be
Tobolsk, the chief city of Siberia, situated just east of the Ural Mountains. When the members
of the St. Petersburg Academy learned of the plans of their French counterparts, protests were
raised, but too late to prevent the arrival of Chappe.30 Therefore, in characteristically patriotic
spirit,
the
academician
Mikhail
Vasil‟evich
Lomonosov
(1711–1765)
argued
in
November 1760 that not just one but two Russian astronomers should be sent to Siberia. As
he saw it, the Professor of Astronomy Nikita Ivanovich Popov (1720-1782) and his adjunct
Stepan Iakovlevich Rumovskii (1734-1812) would be the ideal candidates for these
expeditions, although he admitted doubts as to whether the latter would be able to acquire the
necessary astronomical practice to be really qualified to observe the transit in the space of just
six months.31 Nevertheless, to Lomonosov and other patriots at the Academy it was evidently
important to engage their own astronomers in the project, for the sake of national pride.
Anyhow, the suggestion of Lomonosov was followed and Rumovskii and Popov dispatched
to Siberia in early 1761.
28
The hostility of the eminent polymath – poet, historian, grammarian, physicist and astronomer – Mikhail
Lomonosov towards foreign academicians appears to have been particularly strong: cf. e.g. Snorrason 1974, pp.
78-79; Schulze 1985; Dulac 2000, p. 261; Comtet 2001; Mervaud 2004, pp. 8-9. Among the 111 full members of
the Imperial Academy during the eighteenth century, only 26 were of Russian descent – the rest came from
German states (55 in all), Switzerland (7), Sweden (4) and France (4); cf. Moutchnik 2006, p. 210. Although full
membership was granted to some Russians, their salaries were generally lower than those of the foreign
members: cf. Schulze 1985, pp. 315-316; Snorrason 1974, p. 79.
29
Mervaud 2004, p. 7. In a letter that reached St. Petersburg in January 1760, Lacaille had informed the Imperial
Academy of French plans for the Venus transit (Lomonosov 1955, vol. IX, p. 793).
30
See for example Lomonosov in Kravets & Chenakal (eds.) 1955b, p. 794.
31
Mervaud 2004, p. 9.
- 228 -
All three observers in Siberia – Chappe, Popov and Rumovskii – managed to observe at least
parts of the transit. Popov‟s station was in Irkutsk by Lake Baikal and, as perceived by some
members of the Academy, his observation was far more successful than that of Rumovskii,
who was supposed to travel to Nerchinsk (roughly 800 km east of Irkutsk) or even Iakutsk (by
the river Lena), but made it no further than Selenginsk, some 100 km East of Irkutsk.32
However, only the observations of Chappe and Rumovskii were ever published under the
auspices of the Imperial Academy. Chappe‟s observation arrived first, as a separate brochure
in St. Petersburg early in 176233 and then in more elaborate form in the Histoire de
l’Académie Royale des Sciences in Paris (published 1763).34 However, it took another five
years for Rumovskii‟s report to be published in the official periodical of the Academy, the
Novi Commentarii Academiae Scientiarum Imperialis Petropolitanae.35 In the meantime,
Rumovskii had become appointed Director of the Imperial Observatory and Professor of
Astronomy, and in other articles in the Novi Commentarii, he positioned himself as an
antagonist of Pingré in Paris with regard to the solar parallax (compare Section II.1.2).36
Other observations of the 1761 transit of Venus known to have been made in Russia were
never published in the official periodical of the academy. This was the case not only for the
observation of Popov, but also for the observations of Franz Ulrich Theodosius Aepinus
(1724-1802, Rumovskii‟s teacher),37 Joseph Adam Braun (1712-1768, professor of physics)
and Lomonosov himself, who all observed the transit from private homes in St. Petersburg –
and even for those of Andrei Dmitrievich Krasil‟nikov (1705-1773) and Nikolai Gavrilovich
Kurganov (1726-1796), who had been stationed at the observatory of the Imperial Academy.
The observations of Lomonosov and Aepinus appeared in a tiny brochure, printed in Russian
32
Cf. Mervaud 2004, p. 8 n. 41. The expedition of Popov is mentioned in Rumovskii‟s report, “Brevis expositio
observationum occasione transitus Veneris per Solem in urbe Selenginsk an. 1761. institutarum” 1767a,
especially pp. 443-445. The observations of Popov were never published, however, and are apparently only
mentioned in a Latin manuscript in the archives of the Petersburg Academy (Moutchnik 2006, p. 179).
33
Chappe, Memoire du passage de Venus sur le Soleil … Lû à l’Academie Impériale de St. Petersbourg le 8
Janvier 1762 1762. According to Kravets and Chenakal in Lomonosov 1955b, p. 909, the brochure was
translated and published in Russian as well. It was, however, never included in the academy‟s official periodical,
the Novi Commentarii.
34
Chappe, “Extrait du voyage fait en Sibérie, Pour l‟Observation de Vénus sur le disque du Soleil, faite à
Tobolsk le 6 Juin 1761.” 1763.
35
Rumovskii 1767a. According to Woolf 1959, p. 246, Rumovskii‟s report was first printed as a separate
brochure in St. Petersburg 1762.
36
Rumovskii, “Investigatio parallaxeos Solis ex observatione transitus Veneris per discum solis Selenginski
habita, collata cum observationibus alibi institutis” 1767b; “Animadversiones in supplementum Cel. Pingre ad
dissertationem eius de Parallaxi Solis” 1768.
37
On Aepinus‟ troublesome career in Russia, including his role in the Venus transit project of 1761, see Home
1973.
- 229 -
and German during the summer of 1761 but poorly distributed, whereas those of Braun,
Krasil‟nikov and Kurganov found their way into the Ephemerides Astronomicae of Hell and
thus became available to the international community of astronomers.38
The lack of co-ordination and weak publicity characterising Russia‟s participation in the
Venus transit project of 1761 did not persist as the second opportunity approached. As in
Sweden, preparations for the 1769 transit of Venus started in Russia in early 1767. But here –
at least ostensibly – it was the Empress Catherine II (“Catherine the Great”, 1727-1796, ruler
of Russia from 1762) who took the initiative. This Empress has entered history as an
enlightened ruler, energetically promoting literature, art and the sciences. Largely thanks to
her influence, the activities of the Imperial Russian Academy have probably never been so
integrated in European science as was the case during her period as ruler. 39 A decisive factor
in this development was Catherine‟s success in persuading the world-famous Leonhard Euler
(1707-1783) and his family to return to St. Petersburg in 1766, after he had left Russia
25 years earlier following severe conflict within the academy. His oldest son, Johann Albrecht
(Jean Albert) Euler (1734-1800) was appointed Secretary of the Academy and was to play a
vital role as a networker in conjunction with the Venus transit project of 1769. It also appears
that the above-mentioned Rumovskii was influential in planning the 1769 observations.
Although no study that I am aware of has been devoted to Russian Venus transit activities as
such, the recent works of amongst others Georges Dulac and Alexander Moutchnik analyse
aspects of academic life in St. Petersburg circa 1769 and provide in-depth information
concerning at least some of the actors involved.40
A decisive date in this account is 3 March 1767 (14 March new style), when a letter was
issued by the Empress, addressed to the director of the Imperial Academy in St. Petersburg. In
this letter, Catherine urged immediate action in preparation for the transit of Venus in 1769.
She wished the Academy to make every effort to obtain valuable observations; asked to know
what locations were most suitable and which observers had been elected by the Academy for
this observation; required to be informed of the personnel required, should the construction of
new observatories be necessary; and if the number of astronomers at the Academy should
38
On the report of Lomonosov/Aepinus, see Section II.1.2. The details of the observations of Braun,
Krasil‟nikov and Kurganov were published in Hell 1761a, pp. 92-94.
39
See for example Vucinich 1963 or Madariaga 1998.
40
Dulac 2000 on the role of the secretary of the academy, Johann Albrecht Euler; Moutchnik 2006, pp. 177-232
on the role of the Jesuit Christian Mayer.
- 230 -
prove insufficient to cover all the locations chosen for this observation, would take it upon
herself to find candidates from the admiralty to receive the necessary training before the
transit took place.41 Accordingly, the Academy constructed a map indicating where the transit
would be visible and proposed four Venus transit expeditions to be dispatched to various parts
of the Empire. According to the official accounts later issued by the Academy, the Empress
was not entirely satisfied with this proposal. She therefore doubled the number of expeditions,
and decided that a number of natural history expeditions were to be dispatched as well.42 The
funding was anything but meagre and – despite the relative shortage of time left before the
expeditions were to be dispatched – the Academy managed to supplement its sets of
instruments with the best available equipment from London and Paris.43
In order to assemble the necessary staff, the Academy adopted a twofold strategy. On the one
hand, a number of military officers did receive additional training in practical astronomy to
qualify them to work on the Venus transit, as the Empress had suggested. In addition,
however, extra staff were recruited from abroad.44 Thus, during the period 1768-69, eight
41
Letter from Empress Catherine II to Count Orlov, dated Moscow 3 March 1767 (RAN St. Petersburg; the
entire letter was printed in Rumovskii 1771, pp. 5-6, but with minor alterations in punctuation and spelling, the
most significant of which are here given in [brackets]): “Monsieur le Comte Orlow. ayant apris que pendant
l‟Eté de l‟année 1769. l‟Etoile nommée Venus repassera devant le Soleil, Je vous ecrit [MS; ecris Rumovskii]
cette Lettre, pour que vous disiez à l‟Academie des Sciences de ma part, que Je souhaite. 1) que l‟Academie
fasse faire ses Observations avec le plus grand soin et que Je desire en consequence de savoir. 2) quels sont les
Endroits de l‟Empire les plus favorablement placés, et quels [MS; qui Rum.] sont ceux que l‟Academie destine
pour cette Observation? Afin qu‟au cas qu‟il y fallut batir, envoyer des ouvriers et si on put [MS; peut Rum.]
prendre les mesures convenables. 3) que s‟il n‟y a pas assés d‟Astronomes à l‟Academie pour que l‟Observation
soit complette, dans les Endroits, que l‟Academie aura choisis [MS; choisi Rum.], Je propose et me charge de
faire chercher parmi les Marins des sujets qui pendant le tems qui reste, jusqu‟au passage de Venus pourroient se
perfectioner sous les yeux des Professeurs pour cette Observation, afin d‟etre employés dans cette Expedition
avec utilité au gré de l‟Academie. // Vous me feres parvenir Monsieur le Comte la Reponse de l‟Academie et son
avis bien complet sur tout ceci, afin que Je puisse ordonner tout ce [Rum.; a MS] qu‟il faut sans perte de tems. //
à Moscow ce 3eme Mars 1767 // Catherine”. Cf. Woolf 1959, p. 179 or Anonymous 1797, pp. 73-73 for English
translation.
42
Anonymous, “Praefatio” in Nov.Comm. pro Anno MDCCLIX, vol. XIV pars prior (1770b); Rumovskii,
Nabliudeniia iavleniia venery v solntse v rossiiskoi imperii v 1769 godu uchinennyia s istoricheskim preduvedomleniem 1771, pp. 8-14. I am indebted to Kari Myklebost for translating this and other Russian texts for me.
43
Rumovskii 1771, pp. 17-18 & 30-32.
44
Rumovskii is careful to give the impression that foreign observers were not called for, but only offered their
services on their own initiative, after rumours of the Russian preparations had spread across Europe (Rumovskii
1771, p. 18). However, the examples of Jacques-André Mallet and Christian Mayer indicate that a more active
role was played by the Academy. The first letter from Mallet to the Imperial Academy, dated Geneva
18 September 1767 (RAN St. Petersburg) shows that he offers his services upon the encouragement of Daniel
Bernoulli (1700-1782), a close friend of Leonard Euler who had spent eleven years at the Russian Academy as a
professor of mathematics. It is clear from the wording of Mallet that he takes for granted the need on the part of
the Academy to recruit foreign astronomers – perhaps the Academy had in fact contacted Bernoulli, asking him
to propose a proper candidate? The response of the Academy was swift and positive, indicating that the
academicians were prepared to accept the services of foreign astronomers (draft of letter from J. A. Euler to
Mallet, dated St. Petersburg 20 October 1767 [RAN St. Petersburg]). As for Father Mayer, Lalande was
explicitly asked to find a proper candidate to preside over the observations to be made from the Imperial
- 231 -
Venus transit expeditions were dispatched: four to the Kola Peninsula (where, in the final
event, only three sites were reached) and four to southern and eastern parts of the empire.
Rumours of these grand-scale preparations quickly spread across the Republic of Letters, and
may well have contributed – along with the preparations of Sweden – to the Danish
government‟s decision to contact Maximilianus Hell (see below).
As mentioned, the transit of Venus of 3 June 1769 was due to take place during the night in
Europe, and this fact aroused the concern of prominent members of the astronomical
community. Following the advanced age and death of Delisle (in 1768), Lalande emerged as a
key figure in the co-ordination of observations worldwide. From his point of view,
observations in the northernmost parts of the Russian Empire would be particularly valuable.
One of Lalande‟s letters to the secretary of the Russian Academy, the above-mentioned
J. A. Euler, illustrates this quite vividly (dated Paris, 17 May 1767):45
Has the Academy of St. Petersburg really no plans to dispatch someone to
observe the transit of Venus from beyond the Arctic Circle in 1769? This would
be very important, in order to capture both the ingress and the egress.
Travelling to the High North did indeed form part of the Academy‟s plans. In a report written
by the Academy in response to Catherine‟s letter of March 1767, it was precisely the
advantages provided by the midnight sun that were stressed.46 This explains why four of the
Venus transit expeditions in 1769 were sent to North-West Russia. Rumovskii – who had
travelled to Selenginsk in 1761 – went to the town of Kola, close to present-day Murmansk.
The plan was that Rumovskii‟s assistant, Lieutenant Fadei A. Okhtenskii, was to go to the
island of Kildin just north of Kola in the Bay of Murmansk but, as Rumovskii explains, the
ice did not melt until seven days before the transit took place, much too late for his assistant to
travel there safely and make the necessary preparations.47 Two of the foreign participants in
the project, the Swiss astronomers Jacques-André Mallet (1740-1790) and Jean-Louis Pictet
Observatory in St. Petersburg. Having tried – and failed – to hire two of his former students for this task, he
passed the job over to Mayer (letter from Lalande to J. A. Euler, dated Paris 25 February 1769 [RAN St.
Petersburg]). According to the editor of the travel diaries of Mallet and Pictet, Jean-Daniel Candaux, not only
Bernoulli but Lalande, too, had written to Mallet and advised him to participate in the Russian Venus transit
project (Candaux 2005, p. 4) – another indication that the Academy had made it clear that they wished to recruit
foreign candidates for their expeditions as early as the summer of 1767.
45
Lalande to J. A. Euler, 17th May 1767 (RAN St. Petersburg): “L‟academie de petersbourg ne Se propose-t-elle
point d‟envoyer quelqu‟un en 1769 au dela du Cercle polaire, pour observer le passage de venus, Cela seroit bien
important, afin d‟avoir l‟entrée et la sortie”.
46
Rumovskii 1771, pp. 8-9.
47
Rumovskii 1771, pp. 35-36.
- 232 -
(1739-1781), covered the eastern and southern coast of the Kola Peninsula, stationing
themselves at Ponoi and Umba respectively. The other sites of observation covered by
Russian-sponsored observers in 1769 were St. Petersburg, Orsk (just South of the Ural
Mountains), Orenburg (to the West of Orsk), Gur‟ev (on the northern banks of the Caspian
Sea) and Iakutsk (by the River Lena in Siberia).
All the observers spent months or even years involved with their expeditions; they were given
extra sets of instruments for meteorological and geophysical observations, and they were
supposed to determine not only the exact co-ordinates of their observatories but also of places
visited along their travel routes.48 Various natural historians were concomitantly recruited to
the Academy, among them Simon Peter Pallas (1741-1811), who was to embark upon his first
in a series of expeditions across the vast Russian Empire in that year. 49 As J. A. Euler put it in
a letter of September 1767, “our academy will divide itself in two parts, one of which will
travel through all the provinces of the empire and the other of which will remain here”. 50
Little wonder, then, that the volume of the Novi Commentarii of the Imperial Academy
covering the year 1769 had to be split into two halves, the second part being 640 pages long
and devoted to data assembled in conjunction with the Venus transit project alone. This feat is
unparalleled in the history of the acts of this Academy prior to the nineteenth century (see
Table 2).
Publicity surrounding the Russian-sponsored Venus transit observations was kept very high.
Even though not all observers succeeded in obtaining complete observations, the relevant data
for the co-ordinates of their observatories and whatever they managed to see of the transit
itself were extracted from the expedition diaries and published unabridged as soon as the
manuscripts reached the capital. These individual reports were distributed widely throughout
the Republic of Letters without delay. Although the originals had been written in German,
French, Russian or Latin, according to the preferences of the observers, they were all reissued
in Latin in the Novi Commentarii as well as in a compilation called „Collection of all the
observations that were undertaken in conjunction with the transit of Venus in front of the Sun
in the year 1769‟, and in Russian in a „Historical report on the observations of Venus in the
48
Cf. the instructions to the expedition leaders, printed in Rumovskii 1771, pp. 41-46.
See for example Vucinich 1963, pp. 150-154; Donnert 1986, pp. 95-114.
50
J. A. Euler to the secretary of the Berlin Academy, Heinrich (Henry) Samuel Formey, September 1767 (quoted
after Dulac 2000, p. 235): “Notre Académie se divisera […] en deux corps, dont l‟un voyagera dans toutes les
provinces de l‟empire et l‟autre restera ici”.
49
- 233 -
Sun in the Russian Empire in 1769‟ written by Rumovskii.51 In addition, at least some of the
reports were published separately in French translations as well.52 Worthy of particular
mention is the book that one of the foreign participants in the project, the Jesuit Christian
Mayer (1719-1783), wrote for the Empress in the autumn of 1769 after he had observed the
transit from the Imperial Observatory in St. Petersburg. In 355 pages of plain, lucid Latin it
explains the phenomenon pedagogically and places the Russian-sponsored activities of 1769
within the framework of historical developments of astronomy all over the world.53 The entire
book was translated into Russian as well.54 A work of popularised science addressed to a
royal lady (the first words of the title translate as „To The Most Venerable Empress Catherine
II‟), it resembles the immensely successful Lettres à une Princesse d’Allemagne of Leonard
Euler, which were issued in the same period.55
The books of Mayer and Rumovskii both emphasised the utility of the project to astronomy
and human civilisation in general, perceiving the Venus transit expeditions as part of a large
project concerned with the modernisation of the Russian empire. In the aftermath of the
transit, a series of calculations of the solar parallax were presented by representatives of the
Academy in the Novi Commentarii and other publications under the auspices of the academy,
as well as in influential periodicals abroad (see Chapter II.3 below).
Taken as a whole, Russia‟s role in the Venus transit projects of the 1760s is characterised by a
strong element of elitism and utilitarianism. Unlike Sweden, Britain or the Viennese-ruled
territories, where the observations of amateurs were inserted in official publications, efforts to
integrate amateurs in scientific activities in Russia were weak at best. Since 1759, a separate
class of “corresponding members” had been elected to the Imperial Academy, upon the
51
[Anoymous] (ed.), Collectio omnium observationum quae occasione transitus Veneris per Solem a.
MDCCLXIX. iussu Augustae per Imperium Russicum institutae fuerunt una cum theoria indeque deductis
conclusionibus 1770; Rumovskii, Nabliudeniia iavleniia venery v solntse v rossiiskoi imperii v 1769 godu
uchinennyia s istoricheskim preduvedomleniem 1771.
52
Thus, the report of captain Ivan I. Islen‟ev, which was originally written and published in Russian (Islen‟ev
1769), was reissued as Extrait du journal d’observations faites à l’occasion du passage de Venus devant le
disque du soleil a Yakoutsk [1770].
53
Chr. Mayer, Ad Augustissimam Russiarum omnium Catharinam II. Alexiewnam Imperatricem Expositio de
transitu Veneris ante discum Solis d. 23 Maii, 1769 …1769b.
54
According to Moutchnik 2006, pp. 221-222, the Russian translation was 395 pages long and appeared in
300 copies. The Latin original was likewise published in 300 copies. By contrast, Rumovskii‟s Russian report
was published in 1,200 copies (ibid.).
55
L. Euler, Lettres à une Princesse d’Allemagne sur Divers Sujets de Physique & de Philosophie. 3 vols, St.
Petersburg 1768-1772. For a brief account of this publication, cf. e.g. Lackner et al. 2006, pp. 386-388. The
impact of Mayer‟s treatise cannot, however, be compared to the widespread popular acclaim for Euler‟s Lettres;
cf. Moutchnik 2006, pp. 221-226.
- 234 -
proposal of Lomonosov. The chief argument was that competent Russians in the provinces,
many of whom lacked the knowledge of Latin required to be a full member of the Academy,
were to be integrated in the scientific progress of the country. According to a recent study,
altogether 30 corresponding members were elected in the course of the years 1759-1803, and
at least some of these were actively involved in astronomy and meteorology. 56 However, there
is no evidence that any of these correspondents were asked to be on the look-out for Venus in
front of the Sun‟s disc. That task was left to the professionals. True, both Rumovskii and
Mayer describe how the Empress herself observed the transit from her summer residence
outside St. Petersburg – on the opening page of Rumovskii‟s account, there is even an
engraving of Catherine observing the transit – but neither of them includes a record of the
time-keeping or other data of this observation. Mayer does, however, include some
information that is lacking from all the other reports published under the auspices of the
Imperial Academy in the aftermath of 1769: on the day of the transit, he states that57
the mighty example of her Majesty was capable of setting this most ample and
flourishing city in motion; a city which that day seemed to be torn from its seat.
Some set off for the neighbouring mountain called Duderhoff, others intended to
go further in search of a suitable station for observations of this phenomenon;
one day alone was hardly enough to satisfy the wishes of each and every one to
test and correct the course of their clocks. There were those who stayed up all
night, men from the highest nobility among them; some have personally
reported the data of their observations as taken down according to their portable
clocks, others have handed in their observations anonymously.
Mayer then proceeds to present the data sets from a couple of these amateur observers, and
upon inspection concludes that they were of a high quality.58 These amateur observations
were not, however, subject to much attention from other contemporary astronomers, nor have
they entered the modern historiography of the Venus transits. In this respect, the Venus transit
projects in Russia form an antithesis to the story of the activities in Sweden and the Habsburg
lands, analysed above.
56
Smagina 2007.
Chr. Mayer 1769b, p. 92: “Et valuit sane tantum Maiestate plenum exemplum ad commouendam amplissimam
hanc florentissimamque ciuitatem, quae eo die ipsa suis sedibus emota videbatur. Pars ad vicinum Duderhoffii
montem conuolare, pars longius abire, stationemque obseruando huic phaenomeno idoneam quaerere laborabat:
vix dies sufficiebat, vt singulorum voluntati in explorandis ac temperandis eorum horologiis satisfieret: fuere, qui
totam noctem egere peruigilem, atque in his e prima Nobilitate Viri: alii suas ad horologium portatile factas
obseruationes vel ipsi retulerunt, vel tacito suo nomine remiserunt”.
58
Chr. Mayer 1769b, pp. 92-93 footnote.
57
- 235 -
TABLE 2
ARTICLES ON THE VENUS TRANSITS IN THE NOVI COMMENTARII
ACADEMIAE SCIENTIARUM IMPERIALIS PETROPOLITANAE
Volume
Year(s) covered
(published)
Number of pages
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
XI
XII
XIII
XIV Pars I
XIV Pars II
XV
XVI
XVII
XVIII
XIX
XX
1747 & 1748
1749
1750 & 1751
1752 & 1753
1754 & 1755
1756 & 1757
1758 & 1759
1760 & 1761
1762 & 1763
1764
1765
1766 & 1767
1768
1769
1769
1770
1771
1772
1773
1774
1775
(1750)
(1751)
(1753)
(1758)
(1760)
(1761)
(1761)
(1763)
(1764)
(1766)
(1767)
(1768)
(1769)
(1770)
(1770)
(1771)
(1772)
(1773)
(1774)
(1775)
(1776)
76 + 653
35 + 451
40 + 473
70 + 492
47 + 480
44 + 564
47 + 520
72 + 532
56 + 512
71 + 558
54 + 576
58 + 600
52 + 560
52 + 602
20 + 640
60 + 683
64 + 710
58 + 722
68 + 675
76 + 653
80 + 643
Authors
Articles
Volume(s)
Aepinus
Anonymi
Chr. Euler
Heinsius
Islenieff
Krafft
Lowits
Chr. Mayer
Mallet
Pictet
Rumovski
Lexell
1
5
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
5
3
X
XI; XIV Pars II (4 articles)
XIV Pars II
X (2 articles)
XIV Pars II
XIV Pars II; XVI
XIV Pars II
XIII
XIV Pars II
XIV Pars II
XI (2 articles); XI; XII; XIV Pars II
XVI (2 articles); XVII
59
Articles, pages on
Venus transit(s)
--------- (sic)
-- (sic) 59
3, 111
3, 100
1, 12
1, 20
-- 60
12, 567
-- 61
3, 107
1, 64
----
Chappe‟s Memoire du passage de Vénus (1762) mentioned in „Summarium dissertationum‟, pp. 66-67, but
only in the context of longitudinal measurements.
60
Account of the Russian-sponsored Venus transit expeditions of 1769 in „Praefatio‟ (four pages, [i]-[iv]).
61
A couple of articles in this volume treat the geodetic measurements resulting from the Venus transit project,
but not the transits of Venus as such. The same applies to some articles in the preceding volume (XIV Pars II).
- 236 -
II.2.3 THE ROLE OF DENMARK IN THE VENUS TRANSIT PROJECT OF 1761
Denmark was at that time a country with proud traditions in astronomy. It had after all hosted
Tycho Brahe on the island of Hven during the sixteenth century, during those years when he
made observations that came to serve as the foundation for a new understanding of the
universe. As early as 1642, the famous Rundetårn („Round Tower‟) Observatory in
Copenhagen was erected, decades before Paris (1671) or Greenwich (1676), not to mention
Uppsala (1739) or Stockholm (1753). Among the directors of the Rundetårn Observatory
were Ole Rømer (or Olaus Roemer, 1644-1710), famous for his determination of the speed of
light, which he presented to the Paris Academy of Sciences during a ten-year sojourn there
during the 1670s, and Peder (Petrus) Horrebow the Elder (1679-1764), who was appointed
Director of the Observatory in 1714. Horrebow‟s early years in office appear to have been
marked by quite frequent observations and a considerable enlargement of the stock of
instruments. However, a fire in 1728 destroyed most of the instruments, manuscripts and
books of Peder Horrebow, who never managed to get his observatory properly restored. He
retired in 1753, enabling one of his sons, Christian Horrebow (1718-1776) to inherit his post
as Director of the Observatory as well as the title Kongelig Astronom („Astronomer Royal‟).
Since both the relevant transits of Venus took place during his years in office, the career of
Chr. Horrebow merits some consideration.
According to the authors of the work „Four Centuries of Danish Astronomy‟ – Claus Thykier,
Kjeld Gyldenkerne and Per Darnell62 – Christian Horrebow was an able observer. When it
came to political talent, however, he clearly lacked the strategic flair of his Swedish
counterpart, Wargentin. On 6 June 1761, prominent visitors showed up at Rundetårn only to
find obsolete instruments and bad clocks.63 The head of the observatory had made no attempt
to apply for extra funding to acquire new instruments, or at least to repair those that were not
functioning. This situation could probably have been avoided had he contacted the
government and emphasised the international prestige involved in the project. Admittedly,
Chr. Horrebow did what he could with the equipment he had. He and his staff examined the
path of Venus across the Sun‟s disc carefully and – at least some of them – also managed to
observe the moments of egress (the ingress took place during the night and was not
observable in Copenhagen). But when the data was sent to Paris, Horrebow forgot to reduce
62
Thykier et al., Dansk Astronomi gennem Firehundrede År, 3 vols., 1990.
Thykier et al. 1990, vol. I, p. 93: ”Videnskabernes Selskabs formand, Grev Thott, og ikke mindre end
14 astronomer mødte op til umoderne instrumenter og slette ure”. See also vol. II, p. 251.
63
- 237 -
the observed times to Local Mean Time (LMT), a blunder that rendered the crucial moments
of contact of Venus with the limb of the Sun incorrect. 64 Thus, the Copenhagen observation
was of little value to Lalande, who mentions it only in a tiny notice in the memoirs of the
Académie Royale des Sciences (published 1763).65 At his time of writing, Lalande was still
awaiting the adjustment of the time to LMT. Horrebow had, however, assured him by letter
that the difference between the observed time and LMT for Copenhagen “could not be
anything but very insignificant”.66 Several years were to pass until Horrebow finally
published an article (in Danish), in which he adjusted the time-keeping of his observation.
The adjustment turned out to be anything but insignificant – almost three minutes, in fact!67
No trace of these “second thoughts” is to be found in the international literature, however.68
The attention of Horrebow in 1761 appears to have been directed towards the Rundetårn
alone. However, Denmark was in possession of greater resources of relevance to the
international Venus transit project than the famous observatory in its capital. As has already
been explained (Section II.1.1), it was vital to the successful calculation of the solar parallax
to have observers distributed over as great a distance as possible. Arguably, eighteenthcentury Denmark, with its territories in the North and colonies overseas, had the potential to
contribute to the project alongside the Great Powers. As for northern Norway, this region was
ideal for obtaining important data for the computation of the solar parallax because both the
ingress and the egress were going to be visible there. This fact was perceived by one of
Horrebow‟s colleagues, prominent member of the Royal Danish Society of Sciences and
professor of the University of Copenhagen Christian Gottlieb Kratzenstein (1723-1795).
One of the locations where the entire duration of the transit was going to be visible was
Trondheim, at the time the northernmost city in Denmark-Norway. Since 1760, a newlyfounded Society of Sciences had flourished in Trondheim. However, this society lacked an
64
Thykier et al. 1990, vol. II, p. 251.
Lalande, “Remarques sur les Observations du Passage de Vénus, Faites à Copenhague & à Drontheim
en Norwège, par ordre du Roi de Dannemarck” 1763, pp. 113-114.
66
Lalande 1763, p. 113: “M. Horrebow m‟a écrit que la différence ne pouvoit être que très-légère”.
67
Cf. Lalande 1763, p. 113: 2h 3′ 30″ & 2h 21′ 0″, vs. Chr. Horrebow “Tidens Bestemmelse i Henseende til de
Observationer, som skeede i Solen og Venere, da Venus Anno 1761. den 6te Junii passerede igiennem Solen”
1765a, pp. 387-388: 2h 6′ 20″,44 & 2h 23′. 50″,52.
68
Axel V. Nielsen has attempted to vindicate Horrebow‟s Venus transit observation of 1761 by examining the
procedures presented in the article of 1765 (Nielsen 1957a). It may well be that his subsequent adjustment of the
time-keeping was sound, but in the international context of contemporary science Chr. Horrebow certainly failed
to make any large impact and I cannot find these adjustments quoted anywhere in the contemporaneous literature
on the solar parallax.
65
- 238 -
astronomer among its members and its founding fathers were mainly devoted to history,
philosophy, agriculture and natural history.69 Accordingly, the Royal Society of Copenhagen
dispatched two young astronomers to Trondheim, Thomas Bugge (1740–1815) and Urban
Bruun Aaskow (1742–1806). Formally, it was the president of the Royal Society and Director
of the University of Copenhagen Count Johan Ludvig Holstein (1694-1763) who had given
Professor Kratzenstein orders to find two candidates willing to make this expedition among
the “mathematicians” of the University. Bugge and Aaskow left Copenhagen on 5 May and
reached their destination on the thirtieth of the same month, barely a week before the transit
took place.70 The observation of Bugge and Aaskow was partially spoiled by bad weather,
however, and despite the advantageous geographical position of Trondheim, their contribution
is – like that of Horrebow – mentioned only briefly by Lalande in the memoirs of the
Académie Royale des Sciences in Paris.71
That it was Kratzenstein, formally a professor of medicine and experimental physics in
Copenhagen since 1753, and not the professor of astronomy who was placed in charge of the
planning of the Trondheim expedition, indicates the weak position of Chr. Horrebow at that
time. During sessions at the Royal Society of Sciences in March 1761, it was Kratzenstein –
not Horrebow – who presented what appears to have been the first public lecture on the transit
of Venus in Denmark.72 This lecture by Kratzenstein was later published in the Royal
Society‟s Skrifter (1765) and, to judge from the published version, it contained all the
standard elements of such advertisements to a general public.73 Kratzenstein explains how
forthcoming transits are predicted – much like solar eclipses; presents a method of computing
the visibility of a transit and illustrates this on a map (not included in the printed version);
69
Cf. e.g. Aase & Hård 1998; Gilje & Rasmussen 2002, pp. 376-396; Brenna in Andersen et al. 2009.
Lalande 1763, p. 114. Kratzenstein was also given the task of providing Bugge and Aaskow with the necessary
instruments, cf. Snorrason 1974, p. 86.
71
Lalande 1763, p. 114. Thykier et al. says on the observation of Bugge and Aaskow that they “seem to have
had bad weather” (Thykier et al. 1990, vol. II, p. 261: “Bugge og […] Aaskov var i Trondheim, men synes at
have haft skyet vejr”). This is confirmed not only by Lalande, but also by a Latin poem consisting of 20 elegiac
couplets published by the Mayor of Trondheim, Niels Krogh Bredal (1732-1778) just after the transit had taken
place. It tells how the two observers struggled with overcast weather during the transit and had to content
themselves with the end stages of the transit alone; cf. Bredal “Amicis … Bugge et Aaskov, ad Nidrosiam
Veneris Solem transeuntis videndæ gratia iter facientibus per iniuriam nebulosæ athmosphæræ ut plurimum spe
frustratis …” 1761.
72
In the protocol of the Royal Society of Sciences in Copenhagen, it is stated under the entries for 2, 9 and
16 March 1761 that “Professor Kratzenstein læste sin Piece om veneris Gang igiennem Soelen i Junii Maaned” =
“Prof. Kratzenstein read his piece on the transit of Venus through the Sun [which is to take place] in the month
of June” (KDVS Copenhagen, „Protocoll 1742-1770‟, p. 315). In the entry for 9 February in the same protocol,
we find that Kratzenstein has delivered to the Society the manuscript of his lecture as well as a map of the
various transit sites (ibid.).
73
Kratzenstein, “Afhandling Om Veneris Gang igiennem Solen Aar 1761 …” 1765.
70
- 239 -
discusses various locations on Earth from which it would be useful to obtain observations;
presents the practical procedures involved in observing the phenomenon, and discusses recent
improvements to these procedures; and finally, demonstrates the utility of observations of the
transit for the advancement of astronomical knowledge in general. As regards the calculation
of the parallax, Kratzenstein explicitly discusses Vardøhus, Arkhangelsk (in the Russian
north) and Iceland, along with Japan, Batavia (now Jakarta) and Tranquebar (a Danish colony
in India), as potential sites for observations.74
Kratzenstein, then, perceived the advantageous position of not only northern Norway but also
Denmark‟s overseas colonies: more specifically, Tranquebar. At the time when Kratzenstein
held his public lecture, he had in fact been lobbying for some time to bring a Danish observer
to that site. The opportunity presented itself via a cross-disciplinary expedition to the Near
East (Arabia felix), which set off from Copenhagen in January 1761. The initial aim of the
expedition – which was initiated by a proposal from Johann David Michaëlis (1717-1791) of
the University of Göttingen – was to study the plants, animals, peoples, languages, etc. of the
biblical lands, and thus acquire new knowledge of relevance to theology. However, the scope
of the expedition soon expanded to include a wide set of other scientific tasks besides, among
them astronomy and cartography.75 Kratzenstein (again not Horrebow!) was asked to
comment on the mathematical and astronomical sections of the programme, and in a very
detailed report dated 28 November 1760 he ends by pointing to the importance of the transit
of Venus:76
Finally, the transit of Venus in front of the Sun belongs to the mathematical
observations that may be conducted upon arrival in Tranquebar […]. The farther
apart the two observations are, the more useful they will be. […] On this issue I
am pointing out that it would be a great honour to the nation with regard to
astronomy if another observer was sent to Trondheim or Vardøhus.
74
Kratzenstein 1765, p. 527.
On the story of this expedition in view of contemporarneous Danish science and politics, cf. e.g. Rasmussen
(ed.) 1990; Harbsmeier 2003.
76
Kratzenstein, report on the plans for the Arabia-felix expedition, dated Copenhagen 28 November 1760
(translated from German into Danish in Rasmussen [ed.] 1990, pp. 46-58, here p. 58): “Endelig hører også til de
matematiske iagttagelser, som vil kunne blive anstillet efter ankomsten til Trankebar, Venus‟ gennemgang
gennem solen, som finder sted i begyndelsen af juni neste år, og som på grund af sin store betydning for
forbedringen af astronomien har vakt alle astronomers interesse. Jo længere væk fra hinanden de to
observationer er, jo nyttigere vil det være. […] Og jeg bemærker her for øvrigt, at det ville være en stor
fortieneste for nationen med hensyn til astronomien, dersom der derudover blev sendt en observatør til
Drondtheim [Trondheim] eller Wandhuyis [sic]”.
75
- 240 -
Thus, Kratzenstein expected the Arabia felix expedition to have reached Tranquebar by 6 June
1761, where the astronomer/surveyor Carsten Niebuhr (1733-1815) was to observe the
transit.77 Considering the fact that the ship had already left Copenhagen on 4 January, this was
probably not an unrealistic idea. However, by 14 May the party had travelled no further than
Marseille, from where it continued no earlier than 3 June. Thus, Niebuhr found himself in the
middle of the Mediterranean as the transit of Venus took place, and could only report that he
did see the transit, while admitting that an observation on the open sea would be of little – if
any – astronomical value.78 Thus, nothing came out of Kratzenstein‟s idea of having Danishsponsored observers of the Venus transit stationed in India as well as Norway. As for
Tranquebar, this site was covered by a team of Jesuits, whose observation appeared in the
Novi Commentarii of the St. Petersburg Academy.79
The global scope of Kratzenstein‟s ideas concerning Danish participation in the Venus transit
project is in contrast with the activities of Horrebow and his assistants at the Rundetårn
observatory. On 4 June 1761, only two days before the transit, one of Chr. Horrebow‟s
assistants, his brother Peder (Petrus) Horrebow the Younger (1728-1812), submitted a
dissertation „On the Transit of Venus through the Disc of the Sun‟ at the University in
Copenhagen.80 Here, Peder Horrebow discusses the size of Venus as seen in the Sun; the
possibility of an atmosphere surrounding the planet; the utility of the phenomenon for the
determination of the nodes of its orbit; and the possible existence of a moon of Venus. 81 As to
the calculation of the parallax, however, the younger Horrebow refers exclusively to the
method that Halley had suggested back in 1716 and says nothing about Delisle‟s method
(compare Section II.1.2 above). He emphasises Halley‟s suggestion of stationing two
observers as far apart as possible – one in North America and the other in the Far East –
without mentioning that an observer in Trondheim or Tranquebar, for example, might obtain
77
Kratzenstein‟s proposal went into the Royal instruction to the expedition party (quoted from Rasmussen [ed.]
1990, p. 77): “Først og fremmest skal han, efter beskaffenheden af de omstendigheder, som han til den tid vil
befinde sig i, gøre den bedste og mest fordelagtige brug af den så sjældne tildragelse, at Venus går gennem solen
den 6. juni 1761” = “First and foremost, as far as the circumstances allow, he is to make the best and most
profitable use of the very rare occasion offered by the transit of Venus on 6 June 1761”.
78
Niebuhr, Reisebeschreibung nach Arabien und andern umliegenden Ländern 1968 (orig. 1774) vol. I, pp. 1215.
79
[Anonymous], “Transitus Veneris per Solem a Iesuitis Tranquebariae in India orientali observatus” 1767.
80
P. Horrebow, Dissertatio de Transitu Veneris per discum Solis, qvam publico opponentium examini submittet
Mag. Petrus Horrebow […] defendente […] Olao Andreæ Borrebye […] 1761. By Kragh 2008, pp. 60 & 177
this dissertation is wrongly attributed to Christian Horrebow.
81
P. Horrebow 1761, pp. 18-21.
- 241 -
valuable data as well.82 In fact the expeditions of Niebuhr and Bugge/Aascow are not even
mentioned.
As regards the publicity of the Danish observations, the Astronomer Royal curiously
postponed publication of the exact moments of contact at egress – the only information that
really mattered in the ongoing efforts to calculate the parallax. Only a few weeks after the
transit had taken place, however, Chr. Horrebow published a Latin dissertation „On the Path
Drawn by Venus upon the Disc of the Sun‟, where he tries to define the exact path of Venus
by means of three different methods.83 The procedure involved three trained observers – each
with their assistant, in addition to a fourth assistant paying attention to the clocks – all of
whom were kept busy over several hours in the early morning of 6 June 1761. In the
introduction, Chr. Horrebow states that:84
I will say nothing yet on the observations made with larger telescopes for the
determination of the egress of Venus, or with a quadrant and a meridian circle
for the verification of the time-keeping and the meridian both before and after
the conjunction took place; I reserve all this to its proper time and place.
As has already been explained, the adjustments to the time-keeping were not published until
1765, in an article in the vernacular. Besides, only two among the crew of observers had
attempted to observe the moments of contact at egress (see Section II.2.5). None of the other
important aspects of the transit – the “black drop” effect, the possibility of an atmosphere
surrounding Venus, the determination of the visibility of the forthcoming transit of 1769, etc.
– are known to have been discussed in any publication by the brothers Horrebow or their
assistants in the aftermath of June 1761.
However, one aspect of the theory of Venus that did receive attention in Copenhagen was the
question of the “moon of Venus”. During the spring of 1764, one of Christian Horrebow‟s
assistants, Peder Rødkier (or Roedkiær, ?-1767), believed he observed the notorious “moon of
Venus” on two occasions in the month of March. The instrument maker Johannes Ahl (or
Johan Ahl, 1729-1795) also saw the same object. A few days later, the Astronomer Royal
82
P. Horrebow 1761, pp. 24-29.
Chr. Horrebow, Dissertatio de semita, qvam in Sole descripsit Venus […] Die 6 Junii Ao. 1761 (in two parts,
presented as a dissertation at the University of Copenhagen on 28 and 29 July 1761), 1761a and 1761b.
84
Chr. Horrebow 1761a, p. 3: “Nihil heic jam loqvor de observationibus per tubos majores pro determinando
Veneris egressu, & per qvadranten & Rotam meridianam pro verificatione temporis & meridiani ante & post
conjunctionem factis, has omnes suo loco & tempori reservo”.
83
- 242 -
himself, along with Rødkier, Ahl, Peder Horrebow the Younger and a Christian Boserup –
thought they could verify the existence of a moon of Venus by means of a 9½-foot telescope
at the Rundetårn. Accordingly, Chr. Horrebow reported their findings in the Gazette littéraire
de l’Europe of 18 April 1764, as well as at lectures held at the Royal Society of Copenhagen
that were published in its proceedings.85 However, these observations were placed under
scrutiny by Maximilianus Hell and elegantly refuted as mere optical illusions in his treatise
„On the Moon of Venus‟ (see Section II.1.4).86
In order to contribute to the Venus transit project, not too much skill was required. The most
important thing was to be in possession of a good astronomical tube and a reliable clock for
the time-keeping. In principle, it was possible to learn the rest within a few weeks or months
of practice.87 Arguably, Denmark-Norway as a seafaring nation had an unexploited resource
in their captains of ships, in the navy for example, since a rudimentary knowledge at least of
practical astronomy was required in order to navigate on the open sea. Furthermore, the 1761
transit took place in the midst of a joint Swedish-Danish project of geodesy, by which various
surveyors were measuring the still undetermined border between Norway and Sweden/Finland.88 This also meant that there were experienced surveyors around – another unexploited
resource for the Danish Venus transit project of 1761. In Sweden an amateur of astronomy
and veteran of the boundary surveying, Hellant in Torneå, was not only invited to participate,
but was even sponsored by the Royal Academy to do so (Section I.2.1). Other participants on
the Swedish side were various captains of ships, teachers at academies and colleges, and at
85
Rødkier, “Beretning om een den 3 og 4 Martii 1764. giort Jagttagelse, angaaende Veneris Drabant” 1765; Chr.
Horrebow, “Reflexioner, anlangende Veneris Drabant” 1765a & “Videre Fortsættelse af Observationerne giorte
paa Veneris Drabant” 1765b. It is known that Horrebow received a copy of Baudouin‟s memoir on the satellite
of Venus just after it had been published, from the Swedish astronomer Bengt Ferner (or Ferrner, 1724-1802)
who was in Paris at the time (Ferner‟s diary, entries 20-24 May 1761 = Ferrner 1956, pp. 388-390).
86
Hell 1765, espec. pp. 25-26 & 83-84. For a more elaborate account of the observations and deliberations of
Horrebow and other Danish astronomers, see now Kragh 2008, espec. pp. 59-67.
87
That laymen were in fact encouraged to participate in the project is evident from the pedagogical nature of
writings such as Hell‟s Transitus Veneris per discum Solis Anni 1761 … 1760; Martin, Venus in the Sun: being
an Explanation of the Rationale of that great Phænomenon … 1760; Ferguson, A Plain Method of Determining
the Parallax of Venus by her Transit over the Sun 1760 (cf. Sellers 2001, pp. 122-123); Röhl, Merkwürdigkeiten
von den Durchgängen der Venus durch die Sonne 1768; Maskelyne, Instructions Relative to the Observation of
the Ensuing Transit of Venus over the Sun’s Disk … 1768; [Anonymous], A Copper Plate and Discourse of the
Transit of Venus, On the 3d of June 1769 … [1769]; etc. In 1769, Hell allowed the natural historian
Borchgrevink to use one of his three telescopes to observe the transit, despite the fact that Borchgrevink had no
previous experience in astronomy (see Section II.3.2). Another natural historian and pupil of Linnaeus, Daniel
Solander (1733-1782), was also observing the transit alongside Captain Cook and the astronomer Green on
Tahiti, presumably without having any previous experience in astronomy either (Cook 1772).
88
A border treaty was signed between the two countries in 1751. In an additional document (kodicill), it was
agreed that the border measurements which had started during the 1740s were to continue for seven more years
(in fact, the measurements were not finished until 1767; see for example Tobé 1991, pp. 59-61).
- 243 -
least one instrument maker, as well as other civil servants and officials with a general interest
in science.89 By contrast, nothing comparable took place in Denmark or Norway, where no
one took responsibility for planning, co-ordinating or publishing such observations. Instead,
non-professional astronomers were left to act on their own initiative.
One example of a person participating in the project of 1761 on his own initiative is the
surveyor Jørgen Nicolai Holm (1727–1769), a veteran of the survey of the boundary between
Norway and Sweden. As we have seen, Lalande‟s notices in the Histoire de l’Académie
Royale in Paris constitute a main source for the Venus transit observations of 1761 in both
Denmark and Norway. However, a cross-check with the Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society of London from the same period reveals that another observer managed to
observe at least part of the 1761 transit in Trondheim. The source for this information is an
article by the British optician and amateur astronomer James Short (1710-1768), who in one
of his attempts to compute the solar parallax uses data from a “private letter” he has received
from an observer in Trondheim.90 Comparison with the observation of Bugge, as published by
Lalande, demonstrates that the observation is not identical, for the determination of the
interior contact at egress differs by more than one and a half minutes between the two.91 Other
sources reveal the identity of this observer as the surveyor Holm, who probably had met Short
personally during a visit to London in May 1760.92 Soon after, he was in possession of a
telescope of Short‟s making.93 In 1761, he almost certainly acted on his own initiative when
he observed the transit from his hometown Trondheim and this may explain why his
observation has been anonymised by Short.
Another Norwegian surveyor, Christopher Hammer (1720-1804), observed the transit of
Venus from Melboestad in Oppland County in Norway, but appears never to have had his
89
Wargentin 1761a, Hellant 1761; cf. Oseen 1939, p. 152 & p. 362 endotes 76-81.
Short, “The Observations of the internal Contact of Venus with the Sun‟s Limb…” 1763.
91
Lalande 1763, p. 114: “on trouve pour le temps vrai du contact intérieur observé 9h 3′ 27″”; Short 1763, p. 613
(in a table of observations of the interior contact at egress): “Drontheim at 9 1 49 from a private letter”.
92
Wargentin “Nogle Norske Stæders Geographiske Beliggenhed, bestemt i Anledning af afg. Danske Astronoms
og Professors Hr. G. Holms Observationer” 1784, p. 415; Bugge in Hell 1790, p. 373: “Ex Cl. Holm
observatione transitus veneris Anno 1761 aliam [scil. differentiam meridianorum pro urbe Nidrosiensi] adhuc =
34′50″, deduxit Dom. Short. (Vide Philosophical Transactions 1762 pag. 624)” = “From famous Holm‟s
observation of the transit of Venus in the year 1761 another [longitude for the city of Trondheim] – 34′50″ – has
been deduced by Mr. Short (see Short 1763, p. 624)”. Holm‟s travels abroad are summarised by Helk 1991,
vol. II, p. 147. His participation in the border measurements, as well as his scientific career in general, is
currently being studied by Nils Voje Johansen (in preparation).
93
Wargentin 1784, p. [413].
90
- 244 -
data published. Hammer‟s manuscript – preserved at the Gunnerus Library in Trondheim94 –
includes a rough determination of Local Mean Time for the fourth contact, but overall, his
report lacks the systematic exposition of the data that characterises the observations of
Swedish amateurs published in the periodical of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.
This could easily have been avoided had conscious efforts been made to integrate DanishNorwegain amateurs of science within the project.
II.2.4 THE ROLE OF DENMARK IN THE VENUS TRANSIT PROJECT OF 1769,
WITH A GLANCE AT BRITISH ACTIVITIES IN THE SAME YEAR
In preceeding sections (II.2.1 and II.2.2), we have seen how plans for scientific expeditions to
locations in the regions near northern Norway were taking form in both Russia and Sweden
during the first half of 1767. Leading astronomers from abroad, such as Lalande in Paris and
the Astronomer Royal Nevil Maskelyne (1732-1811) in London, soon became involved as
encouragers, advisors and intermediaries for placing orders at the instrument makers‟. It is not
known whether similar letters of encouragement were received at the Royal Society of
Sciences in Copenhagen, whose archives from this period are unfortunately incomplete. 95 As
explained in Section I.2.3 above, decision to contact Hell was taken in the foreign ministry on
18 August 1767. By that time, we may take for granted that the ministers in Copenhagen had
learned of the steps that were already being taken in their neighbouring countries.
Furthermore, it cannot have escaped the notice of the Royal Danish Society that, as far as the
coming transit of Venus was concerned, representatives of the Great Powers of contemporary
astronomy placed high hopes in Swedish and Russian – to the detriment of Danish –
astronomy.
94
Hammer‟s manuscript “Venus‟ gang gennem Solen Jakttaget paa Melboestad den 6 Junij 1761” (Gunnerusbiblioteket in Trondheim, „XA HA Qv. 80 m‟), includes a delineation of the path of Venus across the disc of the
Sun along with the time for the fourth contact. According to his biographer, Vegard Elvestrand, Chr. Hammer
studied geometry in Copenhagen in the late 1740s and was active as a surveyor and cartographer throughout the
1750s and 1760s (Elvestrand 2004, pp. 205-207; 228-238; 250-251; 566-570). See now Aspaas 2011a for a
facsimile and discussion of Hammer‟s manuscript.
95
Archival studies by Nils Voje Johansen and myself in relevant archives in Copenhagen have yielded nothing.
Furthermore, the correspondence of the foreign minister Johann Hartvig Ernst Bernstorff (1712-1772), published
by Poul Vedel and Aage Friis, contain no information on the Venus transit activities of Denmark prior to
June 1768, when Hell had already arrived in Copenhagen (Vedel 1882a; Vedel 1882b; Friis 1904; Friis 1907;
Friis 1913). Likewise, the five-volume history of „The Royal Danish Society of Sciences 1742-1942‟, which is
based on a thorough study of the entire archival collections of the Society, reveals nothing (Asgeir Lomholt
1942-1973). Nor have we been able to track down any overlooked items in that particular archive that might
shed new light on this issue.
- 245 -
Several publications by influential French and British astronomers stressed the importance of
being present in the high North of Europe for the transit of 1769. Halley had already pointed
to “the northernmost parts of Norway” as an ideal place for observations because of the
midnight sun in the Philosophical Transactions for the year 1716.96 This statement was
followed up by a later generation of fellows of the Royal Society, among them
James Ferguson (1710-1776) and Thomas Hornsby (1733-1810), both of whom pointed to
“Wardhuys” (or “Wardhus”) in similar papers from the mid-1760s.97 Ferguson even went so
far as to state that “[t]he most proper places for observing this Transit would be Wardhuys, a
port Town in Norwegian Lapland, & some of the Solomon Jsles”.98 The astronomers of Paris,
too, recognised the importance of making observations in northern Scandinavia. When
Lalande in 1764 published a coloured mappe-monde of the visibility of the coming transit,
northern Norway, including “Wardhus”, emerged as an ideal place for observations. In an
accompanying memoir, Lalande explicitly pointed to the region of Lapponie, into whose
northernmost parts he expected astronomers from Sweden and Russia to penetrate, while
saying nothing, however, about representatives from Denmark-Norway.99 During the winter
of 1766-67, another influential French astronomer, Alexandre Guy Pingré (1711-1796)
presented to the Académie Royale des Sciences a memoir „On the choice and state of sites
where the passage of Venus of 3 June 1769 may be most advantageously observed‟. 100 Like
Lalande, Pingré pointed to Lapland, where he expected great things of the Swedes and the
Russians, while barely mentioning the Danes at all.101
The low reputation of Danish-Norwegian astronomy in this period appears to have been
widespread. Already in the Histoire de l’Académie Royale des Sciences for the year 1757
(published 1762), the editor pointed out that the King of Denmark would be in a position to
96
Halley 1717, p. 464: “constat Venerem extremum Solis limbum Boreum quasi centro suo stringere debere,
Anno 1769, […] ita ut, ob Parallaxin, in Borealibus Norwegiæ partibus, tota intra Solem inocciduum apparere
poterit”.
97
Ferguson, “A Delineation of the Transit of Venus expected in the Year 1769 …” 1764; Hornsby, “On the
Transit of Venus in 1769 …” 1766. Hornsby‟s paper was also translated into German and published in the Neues
Hamburgisches Magazin (Hornsby 1767).
98
Ferguson 1764, Tab. I.
99
Lalande, Explication de la Figure du Passage de Venus sur le Disque du Soleil, Qui s’observera le 3 Juin
1769 … 1764b, espec. pp. 14-17.
100
Pingré, Mémoire sur le choix et l’état des lieux Où le passage de Vénus du 3. Juin 1769 pourra être observé
avec le plus d’avantage; et principalement sur la position géographique des isles de la mer du Sud … 1767.
101
Cf. Pingré 1767, espec. pp. 12-13 & 17-18. One might ask for the opinions of astronomers in other countries.
However, a similar memoir from Joseph Louis de Lagrange (1736-1813), read at the Royal Academy of Berlin
12 November 1767, is much less limited in its geographical scope. Apart from several places in Germany,
Lagrange mentions only Paris and a couple of places in the Middle East; cf. Lagrange “Mémoire sur le passage
de Vénus du 3 Juin 1769” 1768, espec. pp. 295-301.
- 246 -
provide data of the utmost utility by dispatching astronomers to northern Norway in 1769, “if
there are, in his Estates, Observers sufficiently experienced, and equipped with instruments of
sufficient quality to make this grand observation with adequate precision”, he added, with
more than a hint of scepticism.102
Similarly, on 5 January 1768, the British Astronomer Royal sent a letter to Wargentin, urging
the Swedish Academy of Sciences to send observers to Wardhus and Lapponiæ caput
septentrionale (“the northern Cape of Lapland”), both of which lay, as he must have been well
aware, within the confines of the Danish-Norwegian Kingdom. This letter was written after
the Royal Society of London, at a meeting on 19 November 1767, had singled out Vardø and
North Cape as possible sites for British Venus transit observations, “unless it was learned that
Swedish or Danish astronomers were planning to make use of these stations”.103 The letter to
Wargentin reveals that the Royal Society of London had no idea about the expedition by Hell
at this stage. What is more, Maskelyne apparently had such low faith in the qualities of
Danish astronomers that he found it futile to encourage them to make observations from these
important stations. This explains why he insisted that the Swedes should go to northern
Norway to make Venus transit observations in 1769, instead of the Danes:104
The Royal Society wishes strongly, that the coming transit of Venus through the
disc of the Sun be observed correctly and in the places necessary for
102
“Du passage de Vénus sur le Soleil, Qui s‟observera en 1769.”, HARS 1757 (1762), pp. 99-108, here p. 106:
“Le roi de Danemarck qui a signalé de même son goût pour les Sciences, en envoyant des Astronomes en
Norvège pour le passage de 1761, sera à portée de nous procurer le même avantage que la Russie, s‟il se trouve
dans ses États des Observateurs assez bien exercés, & munis d‟assez bons instrumens pour faire cette grande
observation avec une précision suffisante”.
103
Woolf 1959, p. 164.
104
Maskelyne to Wargentin, dated Greenwich 5 January 1768 (CVH Stockholm): “Regia Societas exoptat, ut
proxime futurus transitus Veneris per discum solis rite & in debitis locis pro parallaxi solis determinanda
observetur. Jtaque verisimile est eos aliquos observatores in exteras regiones missuros [scripsi; missuras MS]
esse; sed interea scire volunt, quibus in locis Astronomi Sueci observationes suas peragere statuerunt [...]. Loci
idonei pro observando transitu Veneris apud vos aut non longe a vobis dissiti, sunt Tornea[,] Kittis, Wardhus, &
Lapponiæ caput septentrionale. Jn his locis duratio transitus veneris extendetur 11 aut 12 minutis temporis
propter parallaxes. Locus ultimo dictus nempe Lapponiæ caput extremum huic observationi optime convenit,
quoniam altitudo solis illic in utrisque contactibus internis ad 8 aut 9 gradus ascendet, scilicet major quam in
reliquis locis; quamvis non multo humilior erit apud Wardhus; verum apud [scripsi; apud bis MS] Kittis altitudo
solis vix 5 gradus superabit, et apud Tornea vix quatuor cum semisse. Utinam Astronomi Sueci in omnibus his
locis observationes instituant; præcipue autem exopto quod vel tu vir doctissime et expertissime, vel doctissimus
& observandi peritissimus Dnus Mallet Ast. Obs. Reg. Ups. in uno aut altero ex his locis duobus primo dictis scil.
Lappon. cap. et Wardhus, vel potius, si fieri potest, alter in hoc, alter in illo observationem exoptatissimam
peragere velletis. Certe summâ solertiâ præstabitur, et maximus fructus ex ea colligetur. [...] si tu sociique tui
dignissimi opus hoc suscipere volunt, Societas regia possunt eo impensius vires suas intendere ad observationes
in aliis pluribus locis instituendis. [...] Quid, si vobis placuerit transitum observare apud Lapponiæ caput et
Wardhus, anne etiam placebit contemplari transitum per telescopia Gregoriana anglicanis similia, nempe duorum
pedum; Jta comparatio inter observatores præstantior erit et certior”.
- 247 -
computation of the solar parallax. Accordingly, it is likely that it will dispatch
observers to regions overseas, but in the meantime, it wishes to know in what
places the Swedish observers will conduct their observations [...]. Suitable
places for observing the transit of Venus in your country or not far away from it,
are Torneå, Kittis, Vardøhus, and the northern Cape of Lapland [i.e., the North
Cape]. In these places, the duration of the transit will extend 11 or 12 minutes in
time because of the parallaxes. The last of the places mentioned – that is, the
extreme Cape of Lapland – fits perfectly well for this observation, since there
the altitude of the Sun will rise to eight or nine degrees during both interior
contacts, which is higher than in any of the other places; although it will not be
considerably lower in Vardøhus, the altitude of the Sun will in Kittis hardly be
any higher than five degrees, and in Torneå, hardly higher than four and a half.
If only Swedish astronomers would take upon themselves to make observations
in all these places! Most of all, however, I sincerely wish that either You, most
learned and well experienced man, or the most learned and in astronomical
observations so well versed Mr. Mallet, astronomer of the Royal Observatory in
Uppsala, would take upon Yourselves to conduct this highly wished-for
observation in one of the two above-mentioned places – that is, the Cape of
Lapland and Vardøhus – or rather, if possible, one of You at this, and the other
at the other site. The task will then certainly be conducted with the highest care,
and provide the richest harvest. [...] If You and Your highly worthy assistants
are willing to take upon Yourselves this task, the Royal Society will be in a
position to concentrate its efforts, all the more eager on conducting observations
in several other places. [...] May I suggest that You, if You agree to observe the
transit from the Cape of Lapland or Vardøhus, may also be willing to observe
the transit with Gregorian telescopes similar to the English ones, that is, two feet
long? In that way, comparison between the observers will be more eminent and
secure.
Thus far Maskelyne. As to his emphasis on northernmost Norway as a region better suited for
observations of the Venus transit than Swedish Lapland, the British Astronomer Royal in fact
contradicts Wargentin, who in the application to the Swedish King one year earlier had
stressed that “no place in the whole of Europe, Asia or Africa is better suited [for observations
of the transit] than Swedish Lapland” (see above, Section II.2.1). It might seem strange that
Wargentin, as an able astronomer, did not judge the advantages of northernmost Fennoscandia
in the same way as his British counterpart. For political reasons, however, Denmark-Norway
was not likely to allow Swedish astronomers to make expeditions within their territories
anyway. Thus we may guess that it was the PR man speaking, not the astronomer Wargentin,
on the above occasion.
Clearly, Denmark-Norway should seize the opportunity offered by the publicity surrounding
the transit of Venus and arrange for a qualified observer to be stationed somewhere in
northern Norway. Vardø was as good a choice as any. For ages, a fortress and a Danish-
- 248 -
Norwegian garrison had been stationed there, signalling the strategic importance of this
easternmost village in Norway.105
With a positive answer from Father Hell, widely recognised as an able observer and an expert
on the planet Venus, Denmark-Norway had obtained a „scoop‟. But the government in
Copenhagen did not limit itself to the expedition of Hell alone.
Unlike in 1761, action was taken on this occasion to invite local observers in Norway to
participate in the project alongside the professionals. One such invitation was sent to the
surveyor Jørgen Nicolai Holm, who – as has already been told – had observed the 1761
passage of Venus on his own initiative in Trondheim (See Section II.2.2). Since then, he had
been appointed a Professor designatus in Copenhagen, although he still resided in Alta in the
Finnmark county of Norway, where he had been based during the boundary surveying. It is
under the title of “Most noble and erudite Mr. Professor” that the Interior Minister and
President of the Royal Society of Sciences, Otto Thott (1703-1785) addresses him in a letter
dated 26 March 1768. The field-work involved in the Swedish/Danish boundary survey had
now come to an end and the minister appears to be at a loss concerning the professor‟s
whereabouts. He suggests, however, that Holm should take up a position in Tromsø or some
other suitable place in northernmost Norway on 3 June 1769, if “the conditions and health of
Mr. Professor” allow this:106
For Professor Jørgen Nicolai Holm // Most noble and erudite Professor! Since
His Royal Majesty has most graciously ordered, that besides Father Hell, who is
105
On the historical significance of the military presence at Vardøhus see for example Willoch (ed.) 1960,
Balsvik 1992; Hagen 2008.
106
Thott to Holm, dated 26 March 1768 (RA Copenhagen, Danske Cancelli: Concepter og Indlæg til
Obersecretærens Brevbog): “til Professor Jörgen Nicolai Holm. // Velædle og höylærde // Hr Professor! // Da
hans Kongelig Mayt. Allernaadigst har befalet, at, foruden Pater Hell, som afgaaer til Wardöehuus, for der at
observere Veneris Gang igiennem Soelen, som skeer den 3 Junii 1769, endnu skal tages samme Observation paa
et bequem Sted, i Finmarken, som formeenes at kunde være Tromsöen; Og Man er forsikret, at ingen dertil
kunde findes bequemmere end hr Professor; Saa ville ieg fornemme, om hr Professors Omstændigheder og
helbred tillader Dem, at blive saalænge i finmarken, at De kunde paatage sig denne Observation, hvorom ieg,
med förste vil vente Deres Svar, og tillige hvad Jnstrumenter De i saafald ere forsynede med, eller endnu dertil
maatte behöve; Til hvilken Ende ieg herhos sende en Fortegnelse paa de Jnstrumenter, som til bemte Observation
eragtes fornödne, og herfra kan erholdes; Men ifald hr Professor icke skulle kunde opholde sig der saalænge, for
at forrette denne Observation, skal denne min Skrivelse icke hindre Dem fra, at fortsette Deres forehavende
Needreyse, da ieg derom ligeledes med forderligste venter Deres Svar, samt tillige at ville meddeele mig Deres
Tanker, enten Tromsöen, som meldt, eller hvad andet Sted i finmarken De eragte beqvemmest, til der at kunde
foretage denne Observation, Jeg forbliver // Velædle og höylærde hr Professors // tienstvillige tiener // O. Thott.
// Cancelliet // 26 Martii 1768 // P:S: Skulle hr Professor formeene, at dertil den indbemelte Observation, behöves
fleere eller andre Jnstrumenter, end paa forteignelsen findes anfört, eller De Selv er forsynet med, ville De udi
Deres Svar mig saadant tilmelde.”
- 249 -
going to travel to Vardøhus in order to observe the passage of Venus through
the Sun which is to take place on 3 June 1769, another person shall make the
same observation from a suitable place in Finnmark – a place which, it is
thought, might be Tromsø – and [since] it is certain that no one could be found
more qualified for this task than Mr. Professor, I should like to know whether
the conditions and health of Mr. Professor are such as to allow Him to remain in
Finnmark long enough to be in a position to take upon Himself this observation,
concerning which I expect His swift answer, along with information regarding
what instruments He, should that be the case, is in possession of, or is perhaps
still lacking; to which end I am sending a list indicating the instruments
considered necessary for the above-mentioned observation, and which may be
acquired here in Copenhagen. If, however, Mr. Professor is not in a position to
linger there as long as is required in order to make this observation, this letter of
mine shall not hinder Him from His planned return journey; since I am
expecting His swiftest possible answer to this request, as well as His thoughts as
to whether Tromsø, as stated above, or some other place in Finnmark is
considered by Him more suitable for this particular observation, I remain the
most noble and erudite Mr. Professor‟s obliging servant, O. Thott.
Added to the letter of the minister is a list of instruments that were considered necessary for
the task of observing the transit: a quadrant of a 2 to 2½-foot radius; a 10-foot Dollond
telescope with a micrometer; and a Graham clock. In a postscript, however, Thott invites
Holm to inform him if he finds the list insufficient.107
A curious document in the archives of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences reveals that
before this letter from Thott reached its addressee, another person had already contacted Holm
– the secretary of the Swedish Academy of Sciences, Wargentin. In a letter to Holm dated
16 October 1767, Wargentin had urged this Norwegian surveyor to observe the forthcoming
transit of Venus from his residence in Alta. He had also sent a letter of recommendation to the
“Rector Dass” in Copenhagen,108 urging him to make sure that Holm was employed for this
task. It was this recommendation from Wargentin, Holm informs us, which had resulted in the
invitation from Minister Thott.109 In the spring of 1768, however, Holm was in fact on his
107
Added to the document quoted in the preceding note, on a separate sheet of paper, by another hand:
“Fortegnelse // Paa de Jnstrumenter, som til at observere Veneris Gang igiennem Solen, eragtes fornödne, // 1.
Astronomisk Quadrant paa 2 a 2 ½ Fods Radio // 2. 1 Tubus Dollondianus paa 10 Food med objectiv
micrometro. // 3. 1 horologium Grahamianum.” For Thott‟s postscript, see the preceding footnote.
108
Probably the former Rector of the Katedralskolen (ecclesiastical college for trainee priests) in Trondheim,
Benjamin Dass (1706-1775). According to Wargentin‟s own list of letters dispatched to correspondents abroad
(printed in Nordenmark 1939, pp. 399-424, here p. 405), the letter to Dass was sent 16 October 1767, on the
same day as his letter to “Professor Holm i Norige” = “Professor Holm in Norway”.
109
All this information is revealed in a single document: a letter from Holm to Wargentin dated Copenhagen
26 March 1769 (CVH Stockholm; note that in the repertory of this archive, Holm is wrongly identified as
“amtmann Holm”).
- 250 -
way to Copenhagen. Even before he made it to the capital, the situation there had changed. As
he explains in a letter to Wargentin, dated Copenhagen 26 March 1769,110
when I [...] reached Copenhagen on the very day of Saint John [24 June] and
was about to answer, I ran into some strange and very complicated problems,
which should be told face-to-face rather than in writing. These problems forced
me in dismay to politely refuse the invitation, and thus say no to a task that I,
under other circumstances, would have been happy to take upon myself without
being officially called upon and paid for it; and may indeed still be foolish
enough to undertake.
Holm had not entirely given up the idea of observing the transit from Alta, “particularly since
I learned that nobody had received orders to station himself there”. 111 One further reason was
that he had left his instruments in Alta, so that everything was in fact ready for this
observation.112 Thus, he was secretly pondering about travelling from Copenhagen to Alta
that very spring, via Sweden. This trip of some 1,670 kilometers as the crow flies, most of
which was to be made on sledge upon the snow, never came about, since Holm suddenly died
in April 1769.113
Holm does not explain what intrigues he had run into. As of 24 June 1768, however, Father
Hell had already been staying in Copenhagen for nearly two weeks. During this period, a
sense of shame had spread among the notables of Copenhagen that no Danish astronomer had
offered to take upon himself the task of observing this important astronomical event from
Norway. In a letter to the foreign minister Johann Hartvig Ernst Bernstorff, dated Copenhagen
18 June 1768, his brother Andreas Peter Bernstorff says:114
Father Hell dined here today, brought here in triumph by Niebuhr, who is in
love with him and who has no greater regret in the world than that of not being
110
Holm to Wargentin, Copenhagen 26 March 1769 (CVH Stockholm): “men brevet [fra Thott] indlöb mig ikke,
förend jeg paa Wejen hertil havde naaet Bergen, og da jeg efter en lökkelig Reyse af 4 Dager ankom just St:
Hans Dag til Kiöbenhavn og skulde give Svar, mötte nogle forunderlige og meget indviklede Omstændigheder,
hvilke bedre mundtlig end skriftlig kunde berettes, og giorde, at jeg med et misnöyet Sind maatte takke og
unskylde mig: fölgelig sige Ney til det, jeg under andre Omstændigheder med megen Fornöyelse havde paataget
mig uden at være publiquement kaldet og belönnet, ja det jeg maaske endnu er saa daarlig at foretage”. On
“daarlig” in the sense “foolish” see Kalkar s.v. “Dåre”.
111
Ibid.: “helst siden den Tid jeg fik at höre, at ingen havde faaet Ordre at tage Post der”.
112
Hell and Sajnovics visited Alta in July 1769, where they “tested Holm‟s 20-foot telescope”; Sajn.s diary,
entry on 24 July 1769: “Probatus tubus 20 pedum Dni Holm” (20 pedum is almost certainly a misspelling of
2 pedum, “two-foot”).
113
Lomholt vol. IV, 1961, p. 15.
114
A. P. Bernstorff to J. H. E. Bernstorff, dated Copenhagen 18 June 1768 (Friis 1904, p. 509): “Le père Hell a
dîné aujourd‟hui ici, mené en triomphe par Niebuhr, qui en est amoureux et qui ne regrette rien autant que de ne
pas pouvoir aller avec à Wardehuus. Il est indigné contre Horreb. et contre les jeunes astronomes d‟ici de ce qu‟il
n‟y en a pas un qui aye le même désir, ce qui est effectivement honteux”.
- 251 -
able to travel to Vardøhus along with him. He is furious at Horrebow and the
young astronomers of this city for the reason that there is not one among them
who wishes to do the same, which is indeed disgraceful.
Two weeks later, A. P. Bernstorff informs in another letter to the minister that:115
Father Hell will leave in two days‟ time to travel overland to Trondheim, alone
with his travel companion [i.e., Sajnovics], as the savant gentlemen from these
parts haven‟t found anyone to accompany him. Kratzenstein is so furious about
this situation that he will personally go to Trondheim next year to make his
observations there.
At some point, this “disgraceful” situation changed. In a report to His Majesty, dated
Copenhagen 9 July 1768, the interior minister Thott refers to an order to dispatch a Venus
transit observer to “Nordlandene [„the North Lands‟; comprising the counties of Nordland and
Troms], between Trondheim and Vardøhus”. He has nothing to report on this subject, but
promises to return to it later.116 This means that the invitation to Holm must have been
withdrawn. Then, in the leading newspaper of Denmark-Norway, Kiøbenhavns AdresseContoirs Efterretninger, we find on the front page for 15 August 1768 the information that
His Royal Majesty has decided that two observers are to be sent from the University of
Copenhagen to observe the transit of Venus from “Nordlandene, approximately halfway
between Vardøhus and Trondheim”. Combined with the observations of Hell and his
companion in Vardø, of Kratzenstein in Trondheim, and of Chr. Horrebow at Rundetårn, the
result would be that “this no less important than rare phenomenon” would be “accurately
observed from four different places within His Majesty‟s kingdoms”. Accordingly, it was the
duty of “every single lover of the sciences” to wish for clear skies and good luck to the
observers.117 The identity of the two observers in Nordlandene is not revealed in the
115
A. P. Bernstorff to J. H. E. Bernstorff, dated Bernstorff Estate 2 nd July 1768 (Friis 1904, p. 514): “Le père
Hell part dans deux jours par terre pour Drontheim, seul avec son compagnon, Msrs. les savants d‟ici n‟ayant
trouvé personne pour l‟accompagner. Kratzenstein en est si indigné qu‟il ira lui-même l‟année prochaine à
Drontheim y faire ses observations”.
116
Otto Thott, report to His Majesty attached to a letter to J. H. E. Bernstorff, dated Cancelliet [Copenhagen]
9 July 1768 (RA Copenhagen, „Gehejmekonseilet 45‟): “Angaaende den Observator, som Deres Majestæt har
befalet at skal opsendes til Nordlandene, for der, imellem Trundhiem og Wardöehuus, ligeledes at giöre
Observationer, da skal derom blive givet nærmere allerunderdanigste Eftterretning”.
117
Kiøbenhavns Kongelig alleene privilegerede Adresse-Contoirs med Posten forsendende Efterretninger, 1768.,
10. Aargang, No. 95, Mandagen den 15 August, “Adskilligt Nyt”: “Hans Kongelig Majestet haver af særdeles
Omhue for Videnskabernes Beste og Opkomst befalet, at, foruden den berømte Wienerske Astronomiæ
Professor Hell og Compagnon […], end videre fra det Kiøbenhavnske Universitet skal sendes 2de Observatores
til Nordlandene, for der at giøre samme Observation, omtrent midt imellom Wardehuus og Tronhiem […].
Fremdeles opreyser Hr. Professor Kratzenstein til Foraaret til Tronhiem, for der med lige gode Jnstrumenter at
iagttage meerbemelte Veneris Giennemgang. Dens Jndgang i Solen bliver ligeledes af Justitz-Raad og Professor
Astronomiæ Horrebow observeret paa det Astronomiske Taarn her i Staden; saa at denne saa vigtige som sieldne
- 252 -
newspaper article. It is stated, however, that they intend to reach their destination before the
arrival of the winter, to make themselves ready for the observation. 118 One important
preparatory task would no doubt be to determine the co-ordinates of their site of observation,
as nearly all the places along the coast north of Trondheim were insufficiently determined.
Thus, it would indeed be a great advantage to reach the site of observation well before the
arrival of the midnight sun, while dark skies at night were still at hand for geodetic operations.
Various documents found in the archives of the Danske Kancelli („Interior Ministry‟), reveal
that Christian Horrebow had proposed – and obtained the approval of the Ministry – that the
two observers were to be Peder Horrebow the Younger and Ole Nicolai Bützow (1742-1794),
a teacher at the Landkadetakademiet in Copenhagen (a school providing rudimentary
technical instruction for engineers in the military) who had previous experience in geodesy. 119
Their names first appear in a document dated 31 October 1768, but it is highly likely that
most negotiations concerning candidates, payment, travel routes, and other practical
arrangements for the expedition were agreed orally and were never noted down on any written
document.120 The documents to hand show that their departure from Copenhagen was
scheduled for 5 December 1768 and their arrival in Trondheim for February or March, that is,
a bit later than suggested in the newspaper article of August. This means they would have
been in quite a hurry to reach their destination of Tromsø before the bright skies at night set in
around the beginning of April.
As these arrangements took place, the young King Christian VII (1749-1808, ruler of
Denmark and Norway from 1766) had left Copenhagen on a tour of Europe. According to
Tildragelse paa 4re adskillige Steder i Hans Maiestæts Riger med yderste Nøyagtighed bliver observeret, hvortil
enhver Videnskabs Elskere bør ønske klart Veyer og god Lykke”.
118
Ibid.: “saavel Professor Hell, som disse sidste, agter at være paa de bestemte Stæder førend Vinteren, for
desto bedre i Forveyen at kunde giøre de fornødne Jagttagelser og Forberedelser”.
119
Thott to Chr. Horrebow, dated Cancelliet [Copenhagen] 31 October 1768 (RA Copenhagen, „Koncepter og
Indlæg til Ober-Sekretærens Brevbog‟, 1768); Thott to August von der Lühe, dated Cancelliet 31 October 1768
(RA Copenhagen, „Partikulærekammeret, Regnskaber‟, Bilag 1768); Thott to J. H. E. Bernstorff, Cancelliet
5 November 1768 (RA Copenhagen, „Gehejmekonseilet 45‟); Chr. Horrebow to Thott, Copenhagen
28 November 1768 (RA Copenhagen, „Koncepter og Indlæg til Ober-Sekretærens Brevbog‟, 1768); Thott to
August von der Lühe, dated Cancelliet [Copenhagen] 1 December 1768 (RA Copenhagen, „Partikulærekammeret, Regnskaber‟, Bilag 1768); Thott to J. H. E. Bernstorff, dated Copenhagen 10 December 1768 (RA
Copenhagen, „Gehejmekonseilet 45‟).
120
Thus, the letter to Thott, signed by Chr. Horrebow and dated 28 November (see preceding footnote), is in fact
extant in the hand of Peder Horrebow; Chr. Horrebow has only signed it, explaining that: “Jeg havde önsket at
ved den leilighed personligen at opvarte, men da jeg maae holde sengen formedelst en rheumatisk tilfælde, saa
anbefaler jeg Deres Höygrevelige Excellence de reisendes anliggende skriftligen” = “I had wished to present this
personally, but since I have to stay in bed due to an attack of rheumatism, I recommend the business of the
travellers for Your Most Noble Excellency in writing”.
- 253 -
contemporaneous accounts, he travelled “incognito” as a “Prince of Holstein”, with an
entourage of 56 persons; servants, notables and ministers, among them Foreign Minister
Bernstorff.121 Rumours claimed that the monarch would be visiting almost every important
city in Europe – Rome, Vienna and St. Petersburg included.122 Of the capitals, however, he
ended up seeing only London and Paris, returning to Copenhagen in January 1769. During
this trip, signs that the King‟s mental health was not quite as good as it ought to be were
noticed by his advisors.123 He met Father Hell in Holstein at the outset of the journey in late
May 1768, however, and had occasion to discuss the expedition with the Viennese court
astronomer personally. Both Hell and Sajnovics refer to this and other audiences with the
King with awe and respect, praising his understanding of scientific matters in particular.124
Another meeting of interest to the history of the Venus transits took place in Paris with the
influential astronomer Lalande. The Danish King in fact offered to sponsor Lalande on a trip
to St. Petersburg to preside over Venus transit observations to be made from the Imperial
Observatory.125 This generous offer was probably presented during a meeting the king had
with numerous prominent members of the Académie Royale in November 1768.126 At around
the same time, the Jesuit Christian Mayer contacted Lalande for advice about where to go to
observe the transit, since earlier plans to accompany the prominent Jesuit polymath Roger
Joseph Boscovich (or Ruggerio Giuseppe Boscovich, Ruđer Josip Bošković, 1711-1787) to
North America had stalled. Mayer also wrote to the Royal Society of London, of which he
was a member, offering to go wherever the Royal Society deemed best.127 The result was that
Mayer – instead of Lalande – went to St. Petersburg, a decision he took just in time to reach
121
For the account of Christian VII‟s journey, I have used an article by Bernoulli in Sammlung kurzer Reisebeschreibungen …1784, vol. 4, pp. 5-114, which is based upon a variety of printed and unprinted sources, cf. pp.
[3]-[4]. See also Holm 1902, pp. 148-167 and Langen 2008, chapter 8.
122
These rumours are referred to in several of Hell‟s letters from Vardø, e.g. Hell to Höller, Vardø 15 January
1769; Hell to the General of the Society of Jesus, Vardø 15 January & 6 April 1769.
123
See for example the letter from J. H. E. Bernstorff and H. C. Schimmelmann to Conrad Holck, dated York
1 September 1768 (Friis 1913, pp. 721-725).
124
Sajn.s diary, entries 31 May & 1 June 1768, 29 November 1769, and 8 February 1770; Sajn., letters to
Splenyi, dated Lübeck 5 June 1768 & Copenhagen 10 February 1770; Hell, letter to Höller, dated Vardø
15 January 1769.
125
Lalande “Mémoire sur le Passage de Vénus devant le disque du Soleil, observé le 3 Juin 1769 […]” 1772,
p. 619: “L‟Académie de Pétersbourg avoit invité M. de la Lande à aller dans l‟Observatoire de Pétersbourg pour
y faire l‟observation du passage […]. Il étoit presque déterminé à partir, & le Roi de Danemark qui étoit alors à
Paris, avoit daigné lui promettre des facilités pour ce voyage” = “The Academy of St. Petersburg had invited
M. Lalande to go to the Observatory of St. Petersburg to observe the transit from there […]. He had almost
decided to go and the King of Denmark, who was in Paris at the time, had deigned to afford him the facilities for
this voyage”.
126
The King‟s visit lasted from 21 October to 9 December 1768. In late November, the King invited twenty of
the most famous savants of Paris for dinner “and there was no one to whom he did not say something obliging”
(Bernoulli 1784, pp. 99-100: “und da war keiner, der Er nicht etwas verbindliches gesagt hätte”).
127
Woolf 1959, pp. 169-170.
- 254 -
his destination with the necessary equipment before the phenomenon took place. 128 In his
little-read, 355-page treatise on the transit of Venus dedicated to the Empress of Russia (see
Section II.2.4), Father Mayer mentions that he too has received an invitation to go to
Norway:129
There is also reason for me to publicly express my most sincere and humble
thanks to so great a King, as well as to His Majesty‟s most illustrious and
excellent Minister, the Count of Bernstorff, for the obliging offer to observe the
phenomenon from wherever I wanted in the Kingdom of Norway, if shortage of
time or unfavourable winds made it impossible for me to go to St. Petersburg;
an offer this illustrious and excellent Minister did me the honour of expressing
in a letter.
These invitations, politely rejected but duly thanked for in public, indicate how much prestige
the Danish monarch (or at least his advisors) invested in the Venus transit project of 1769.
II.2.4.1
THE OUTCOME OF EFFORTS TO OBSERVE THE VENUS TRANSIT
FROM DANISH-NORWEGIAN SOIL IN 1769
In London, plans for expeditions can be traced back to the summer of 1766, although a special
committee for the planning and co-ordination of these expeditions was not appointed by the
Royal Society until November 1767.130 On 15 February 1768, the Society sent a petition to
the King for his economic support of expeditions, and this wish was granted on 24 March. At
that time, two expeditions – one to Hudson‟s Bay and the other to the Pacific (later to
materialise as Captain James Cook‟s expedition to Tahiti) – had been decided upon. In the
summer of 1768, the additional destinations of Spitsbergen (Bellsund)131 and North Cape
were being discussed, but the idea of sending a ship to Spitsbergen was dropped, probably
because the ice would prevent it from getting anywhere near the island so early in the
summer.132 The result was that a naval frigate, H.M.S. Emerald, was given the task of
bringing two observers – William Bayly (1737-1810) and Jeremiah Dixon (1733-1779) – to
128
For an excellent account of Mayer‟s journey to Russia, see Moutchnik 2006, pp. 177-232, cf. pp. 112-128 &
389-398.
129
Chr. Mayer 1769b, p. 317: “Est quoque, vnde summas ac demississimas grates tanto REGI, eiusque
Illustrissimo ac Excellentissimo Domino Minstro, D. Comiti DE BERNSDORFF publice persoluam pro gratiose
data, vbi vellem, in Regno Norwegiae obseruandi facultate, si per temporis angustias ventosque contrarios
Petropolim adire non licuisset, vt literis ad me datis idem Ill. ac Excell. D. Minister significare dignatus est”.
130
This account of the British Venus transit expeditions of 1769, unless otherwise indicated, is based entirely
upon Woolf 1959, pp. 161-170.
131
The information that the destination on Spitsbergen was intended to be Bellsund is given in Chr. Mayer
1769b, p. 107. Father Mayer had been a fellow of the Royal Society of London since 1765.
132
My conjecture, cf. Aspaas 2008d.
- 255 -
the northernmost region of Scandinavia. According to Woolf, the Danish King gave his
consent to the plans and promised full co-operation on 6 April 1769. This meant that the King
of Denmark and Norway had either sponsored, or consented to, a total of four expeditions in
the northernmost parts of Norway, where the entire transit was going to be visible. This was
in addition to the private expedition of Kratzenstein to Trondheim, and observations in
Denmark proper. Over the following pages we shall have a brief look at what came of these
efforts.
Bayly and Dixon arrived at Magerøya, the island on which the North Cape is situated, on
28 April 1769. Here, Bayly landed his observatory and set it up just north of present-day
Honningsvåg. The frigate then continued to the settlement of Hammerfest, where it arrived on
7 May. Dixon set up his observatory on a hill called Rypeklubben, rising above the southern
bank of the bay where the present town is situated.133 The two Englishmen managed to
observe only insignificant parts of the transit on 3 June: Dixon‟s observation of the interior
contact at ingress was made through a thin layer of cloud and considered too uncertain to be
of use; the same applied to Bayly‟s. The egress was totally invisible to both observers because
of thick fog. However, Dixon and Bayly succeeded in making maps and drawings of the
coastal areas surrounding their observatories. They also determined the geographical positions
of their sites fairly accurately by means of zenith distances to the Sun‟s upper limb and the
solar eclipse that took place on 4 June. Instruments used were quadrants of one-foot radius,
two-foot achromatic telescopes, four-foot transit instruments and a diversity of astronomical
clocks, micrometers, etc. In addition to purely astronomical observations, Dixon and Bayly
also made meteorological observations using barometers and thermometers, measured the ebb
and flow of the tides and determined the magnetic declination (in Dixon‟s case, even the
inclination). H.M.S. Emerald left Hammerfest on 5 June and Magerøya on 21 June. The
printed reports of Dixon and Bayly take up twenty pages of the Philosophical Transactions,
but contain no statement of gratitude either to local helpers or to the King of Denmark and
Norway for allowing them to operate within his territories. As the world‟s leading naval
power, Britain perhaps took co-operation from Denmark-Norway for granted. According to
Norwegian eyewitness accounts, the crew aboard H.M.S. Emerald numbered about a hundred
133
Although Bayly and Dixon in their expedition reports speak of “North Cape” and “Hammerfost” (sic) as their
sites of observation (Bayly 1770, Dixon 1770), the precise location of the sites emerges from the maps added to
their reports. Furthermore, they are confirmed by a letter from the Amtmann (county prefect) of Finnmark, Ernst
Hagerup to Thott in Copenhagen, dated Talvik 27 July 1769 (RA Oslo, “Danske Kancelli […] Saker vedr. prof.
Maximilian Hells reise til Vardøhus for å iaktta Venus […] Pakke DK E36. Hyllenr. 4A 115 62”).
- 256 -
men, black slaves among them.134 By comparison, the best ships available to the Copenhagenfinanced expeditions were rather modest vessels.135
Kratzenstein carried out his plan of going to Trondheim on his private mission to observe the
transit, although Hell had written him a letter from Trondheim in August 1768 trying to
persuade him to go further north. Hell argued that the Sun would – if above the horizon at all
– in any case be extremely low during egress, so from the astronomer‟s point of view it would
be a much better idea for Kratzenstein to station himself further north, for example around the
68th latitude.136 Despite (or perhaps because of) the fact that Kratzenstein had personally
experienced the waters north of Trondheim before,137 he either chose not, or did not manage
to, follow Hell‟s advice. On his way to Trondheim, Kratzenstein fell victim to a shipwreck
134
Apart from the letter of Hagerup to Thott (see preceding footnote), an interesting account of childhood
memories from a merchant who grew up in Hammerfest in the 1760s and 1770s is extant (published in
Finmarksposten. Et Blad for Finmarken og dem, der interessere sig for denne Landsdel 12te Aarg. Nr. 49.
Lørdag den 8de December 1877; cf. Anonymous 1990).
135
Bishop Gunnerus in a letter to Thott, dated Trondheim 16 January 1768 (RA Oslo, “Danske Kancelli […]
Saker vedr. prof. Maximilian Hells reise til Vardøhus for å iaktta Venus […] Pakke DK E36. Hyllenr. 4A 115
62”), speaks of his own ship – with eights pairs of oars and a cabin for eight persons – as “probably the largest
and best” in his entire diocese (“saavidt jeg veed, den störste og beste her i stiftet”). It would require a crew of
sixteen sailors plus two matroser („able seamen‟) and a los („pilot‟). Another option for Maximilianus Hell‟s
expedition would be to hire a vengebåt (a kind of house boat used for transporting civil servants) with six pairs
of oars and room for eight persons in the cabin, Gunnerus argued. In the final event, it was a hired jekt (a singlesailed vessel commonly used for merchant voyages along the coasts of North Norway) that carried Hell and
Sajnovics on their northbound voyage from Trondheim in the autumn of 1768. This ship had a “rather big cabin”
and a crew of five sailors. In addition to Father Hell and his servant Sebastian Kohl it carried Sajnovics,
Borchgrevink, the cook Caspar Müller, and amtmann Hagerup with his servant, the surgeon Johannes Ripps
(Sajn.s diary, 22 August 1768). In the spring of 1769, on the other hand, the bishop‟s ship was used for
Horrebow/Bützow‟s expedition. After the Danish observers had disembarked at Dønnes, the ship continued to
Hamningberg in Finnmark, where it picked up Hell and his company to bring them back to Trondheim (Sajn.s
diary, 30 June 1769).
136
Hell to Kratzenstein, incomplete draft [Trondheim, August 1768] (facsimile in Hansen & Aspaas 2005,
pp. 112-113): “habebitur contactus internus apparens circiter h. 14. 22′. oritur vero sol die [scripsi; die bis MS]
3 Junij Dronheimij hora 14. m. 23[.] inde colligis dubium valde esse, num contactus internus in egressu
Drontheimij observari poterit, maxime si animadvertas urbem Drontheimiensem montibus sat altis
cir[c]umseptam qui ortum solis integro horæ quadrante retardare possunt. sapienter igitur et provide feceris, si
locum observationis Tibi eligas 30 aut 40 milliaribus Drontheimio septentionem versus distantem, circa gradum
latitudinis 68º, in mappa Wangensteeniana plura reperiuntur loca, in quibus habentur Ecclesiæ Prædicatorum, è
quibus unum Tuæ stationi commodissimum facile reperies” = “The interior contact of Venus with the limb of the
Sun will take place approximately 2.22 am. The Sun rises, however, at 2:23 am in Trondheim on 3 June. Thus,
You see that it is highly uncertain, whether the interior contact of egress will be feasible to observe in
Trondheim, especially if You take into account that the city of Trondheim is surrounded by rather high
mountains which may delay sunrise by an entire quarter of an hour. You will therefore act wisely if You choose
a site some 30 or 40 miles further north, around the latitude of 68 degrees; on the map of Wangenstein several
places are found where churches of priests are at hand. You will easily find among these places the one which is
most suitable for Your station”. Hell‟s prediction for the sunrise fits rather well with a table in the Trondheim
newspaper K. alleene privileg. Trondhiems Adresse-Cont. Efterretning., 1768. No. 10. Fredagen d. 11 Mart.,
where it is stated that sunrise will take place in Trondheim at 2.18 am on 3 June 1768.
137
In 1752, Kratzenstein embarked upon a sea voyage from Arkhangelsk, along the coasts of Norway and
Denmark and through the Baltic to St. Petersburg on behalf of Russia (at the time, he was employed as an
professor at the Imperial Academy of Sciences in St. Petersburg), see Snorrason 1974, pp. 84-85.
- 257 -
and had to swim ashore to save his life. He made it to Trondheim just in time before the
transit took place, but in the final event he failed to see anything of it because of bad
weather.138
The expedition of Peder Horrebow the Younger was no more successful. He and his assistant
were provided with two clocks – one Graham and one of a smaller and more common type; a
ten-foot Dollond telescope with a micrometer; and a quadrant recently fabricated in England.
Although the principal goal was not reached, they at least managed to make some geodetic
observations in Christiania (Oslo) and Trondheim, which they visited in January-February and
February-April 1769 respectively. More than half of the twenty pages of Horrebow‟s report
are devoted to intricate discussions concerning the latitude and longitude of these two towns,
and Horrebow repeatedly stresses that in spite of all his efforts, his results were encumbered
by an unsatisfactory degree of uncertainty. As late as 18 April 1769, the party set out from
Trondheim in the ship of Bishop Gunnerus, whose diocese included the entire northernmost
part of Norway. The party did not make it even halfway to Tromsø, however. By 20 May they
had reached the island of Dønna in Nordland County, and two days later, with a persistent
north wind against him, Horrebow decided to accept an offer of hospitality from Captain
Isach Jørgen Coldevin (1724-1793), whose home lay at Dønnes on the northern part of the
island.139 By 29 May, he had his modest observatory (actually a tent erected by the sailors)
138
Hell 1790, p. 360: “Cel. D. Kratzenstein in itinere maritimo Hafnia Drontheimium tendens terribile
Naufragium passus, vitam, enatando ad littora, salvare coactus est” = “The celebrated Mr. Kratzenstein
experienced a terrible shipwreck during his sea voyage from Copenhagen to Trondheim and had to swim ashore
in order to save his life”. In the Trondheim weekly K. allene privil. Trondhiems Adr.-Cont. Efterretn., 1769.
No. 20. Fredagen den 2 Junii, Kratzentein is mentioned under the rubric Jndpasserede („arriving persons‟). In
No. 23. Fredagen den 16 Junii, his name appears under Udpasserede („leaving persons‟); Hell 1790, pp. 359-360
presents a poem in honour of Kratzenstein by the above-mentioned Bredal. According to the poem, the weather
in Trondheim was bad for the entire duration of the transit. See also the interesting letters from Kratzenstein to
George Louis Lesage, dated Copenhagen 11 February 1769 & 2 February 1772, printed in Prevost 1805, pp.
396-397 & 399-406 (note that the French translation on p. 400 contains a detail that is not included in the
transcript of the Latin original at the bottom of the same page: “La pluie m‟ôta la vue du passage. En un mot, je
n‟ai rapporté de ce voyage que quelques observations de déclinaison de l‟aiguille magnétique” = “The rain
bereaved me of the observation of the transit. In brief, I have reported nothing from this voyage except some
observations of the declination of the magnetic needle”. Curiously, there is no word on the shipswreck in
Prevost‟s extracts of Kratzentstein‟s letters, only that “Ventus continuo fere contrarius effecit, ut nonnisi ultimis,
ante transitum Veneris per solem, diebus, Nidrosiam […] pervenire potuerim” = “The wind blowing almost
constantly against me, it was impossible for me to reach Trondheim earlier than the very last days before the
transit of Venus in front of the Sun took place” [ibid.]).
139
The dates are according to P. Horrebow‟s MS, p. 14 ([Peder Horrebow the Younger], unsigned and undated
twenty-page manuscript starting with the words “Af hvor stor vigtighed det er…” [KB Copenhagen, Thottske
Samling. Quarto, 822. „Efterretning om sammes astronomiske Observationer i Norge, i Anledning af Veneris
Gjennemgang gjennem Solen 1769‟]. The identity of Peder Horrebow as the author of the report is revealed by
his handwriting). According to Sajnovics‟ account, based upon a meeting with the sailors of the ship used by
Horrebow, the party left Trondheim 17 April and reached Dønnes 26 May (Sajn.‟s diary, 30 June 1769). Later,
having met the Coldevin family, Sajnovics explains that Horrebow and Bützow had arrived at Dønnes 20 May
- 258 -
ready on a hilltop nearby. The weather was bad on 3 June; the visitors from Copenhagen only
managed to catch glimpses of Venus in front of the Sun and saw nothing of the moments of
contact. In his unpublished expedition report, which is preserved at the Kongelige Bibliotek
(„Royal Library‟) in Copenhagen,140 Peder Horrebow explains that:141
the outcome has for me been the same as for most others who made expeditions
with the same task; the sky was quite cloudy at the time when Venus was to
make its passage, preventing me from making any observations at all.
Admittedly, I did see Venus in the Sun, but hardly enough, as I shall explain
presently; but the Sun was completely covered by clouds at the time when those
observations were to be made which were of importance and which were to
serve as a basis for conclusions.
Attempts to determine the geographical co-ordinates of Dønnes were conducted over the days
and weeks that followed, but again, Horrebow stresses that his results are unsatisfactory,
blaming his quadrant for this.
The sailors of Horrebow‟s ship, who continued northwards to carry Hell and Sajnovics back
to Trondheim, told a different story. According to them, Horrebow had been afraid to sail
whenever a strong wind started blowing, ordering the sailors to seek port instead. Besides this,
they had gone ashore for all their meals, thus wasting a lot of time.142 If Sajnovics‟ account is
to be believed, this behaviour may explain why Horrebow and Bützow never succeeded in
reaching their intended destination. It is known that the Trondheim-based botanist Henrik
Tonning (1732-1796), not mentioned by Horrebow, also participated in the expedition. His
wish to travel further north was not granted by the leader of the expedition, however.143
and stayed there until 13 June (Sajn.s diary, 18 August 1769). Horrebow‟s MS, p. 19, however, reports of
astronomical observations made at Dønnes as late as 1 July 1769. In the Trondheim weekly, K. alleene privil.
Trondhiems Adr. Cont. Efterretn., 1769. No. 30. Fredagen den 28 Julii, Horrebow and Bützow are listed as
“Jndpasserede” („persons arriving‟). See also Aspaas & Voje Johansen 2004b and Voje Johansen 2011b.
140
See the preceding footnote.
141
P. Horrebow‟s MS, pp. 2-3: “det har gaaet mig, som de fleeste andre, som reiste i samme ærinde, at nemlig
himmelen var den tid, da Venus skulde passere, gandske tyk, saa jeg slet ingen observation kunde giöre; jeg fik
vel Venerem i Soelen at see, dog det neppe nok, som nærmere skal blive forklaret, men Soelen var gandske
bedækket af skyer, naar de observationer skulde giöres, som vare af vigtighed, og hvoraf siden noget skulde
sluttes”.
142
Sajn.‟s diary, 30 June 1769.
143
Sajn.‟s diary, 20 August 1769. Tonning had travelled to Uppsala to study botany under Linnaeus along with
Borchgrevink, in 1766. Unlike the latter, he defended a dissertation there in 1768 and could thus claim to be a
professional natural historian (cf. Jørgensen 2007, pp. 51-52).
- 259 -
Horrebow and Bützow returned to Trondheim in late July, and reached Copenhagen at the
turn of September/October 1769.144
These were the results of the observational attempts from northern parts of Norway, apart
from those of Hell and his assistants in Vardø, which will be reserved for discussion in the
next chapter of this thesis.
Turning now to the PR aspect of the Danish-Norwegian participation in the project, several
sources are of interest. One such source is a letter that has been preserved in the archives of
the Imperial Russian Academy in St. Petersburg. It is signed by the secretary of the Royal
Danish Society of Sciences, Henrik Hielmstierne (1715-1780), Copenhagen 23 September
1769, and is addressed to the secretary of the Russian Academy of Sciences, J. A. Euler:145
Monsieur! It is a noble thing for Your Monarch to have placed Her Academy in
a state of capability to dispatch so many observers, it is glorious for Your
Academy to have already published so many observations of the transit of
Venus in front of the Sun which took place on 3 June this year. Our Academy of
Sciences expresses its deep gratitude for the five pieces on the subject, that you
have been so kind as to send to it [compare Section II.3.3]. If Fortune had been
as bountiful to our plans and preparations, we would have been able remunerate
you equally, since we have procured for observations at five different places in
this country: // 1) Professor Horbow [sic] the Elder has observed from
Copenhagen, at the Astronomical Tower [Rundetårn]. // 2) Professor Hee has
made his observations in the presence of the King and Queen at Frederiksberg
[just outside Copenhagen], a castle situated very advantageously for these kinds
of observations, where the court has been residing this summer. // 3) Professor
144
K. allene privil. Tronhiems Adr. Cont. Efterretn., 1769. No. 30, Fredagen den 28 Julii, “Jndpasserede”;
Kiøbenhavns Kongelig allene priviligerede Adresse-Contoirs Med Posten forsendende Efterretninger, 2 October
1769, “Kiøbenhavn. Jndpasserede”.
145
Hielmstierne to Euler, dated Copenhagen 23rd September 1769 (RAN St. Petersburg): “Monsieur // C‟est
grand pour Votre Monarque d‟avoir mis son academie en Etat, d‟envoier tant d‟Observateurs[,] c‟est glorieux
pour votre academie d‟avoir deja publié tant d‟Observations sur le Passage de Venus par le Soleil arrivé le 3 de
Juin passé. La Societe des Sciences ici vous rend bien de remerciments pour les 5 Pieces, que Vous avés eû la
Bonte de comuniquer à Elle sur ce sujet. Si le Bonheur avoit secondé nos Desseins, et nos Preparatifs, nous vous
aurions rendû le pareil, car on a fait des Observations dans ce Païs en cinq differents Endroits // 1) Le Professeur
Horbow Senior a observé à Copenhague dans la Tour astronomique. // 2 le Professeur Hee a fait ses
Observations à la Presence du Roi et de la Reine à Fridrichsberg un Chateau située tres avantageusement pour
des pareilles Observations, ou la cour a residee cet Eté. // 3 le Professeur Kratzenstein est allé a Trundhiem en
Norvegue pour observer la. // 4 le Professeur Horbow Junior avec un assistent a eté envoié à Tromsdalen situé
dans le Gouvernement de Trundhiem pour le meme But. // 5 le Pere Hill avec plusieurs assistents est allé à
Wardehuus en Finmarque. // Les 4 premiers ont eû le meme sort que les anglois ont eû à Nordcap, Les
Hollandois[,] les allemands etc; ou le ciel a eté couvert, ou la Lumiere de Soleil a eté si foible, qu‟on ne doit
attendre baucoup de leurs Observations; mais en revange le Pere Hill a eù le plus beau Soleil, qu‟on pouvoit
souhaiter; Les Talents reconnus de cet habile Observateur garantiront l‟Exactitude de ses Observations; nous
l‟attendons ici en 2 ou 3 semaines, il ne tardera pas de publier les Observations, et je ne manquerai pas de Vous
les communiquer[.] En attendant j‟ai l‟honneur d‟etre avec la consideration la plus distinquée // Monsieur //
Votre tres humble et trés obeisant serviteur // Hielmstierne”.
- 260 -
Kratzenstein has travelled to Trondheim to observe from there. // 4) Professor
Horbow the Younger, with one assistant, has been sent to Tromsdalen [i.e., the
mainland just opposite the island of Tromsø] in the gouvernement of Trondheim
for the same reason. // 5) Professor Hill [sic], with numerous assistants, has
travelled to Vardøhus in Finnmark. // The first four of these attempts have met
with the same fate as that of the Englishmen situated at Nordkapp, as well as the
Dutchmen, Germans, etc: either the sky has been cloudy or the light of the Sun
has been too feeble for one to expect much from their observations; but, on the
other hand, Professor Hill has had the best sunshine one could have hoped for;
the acknowledged talents of this observer will guarantee the exactitude of his
observations; we expect him to arrive here in two or three weeks, he will not
hesitate to publish his findings and I shall not neglect to send them to You, in
the meantime I have the honour to remain [etc.] // Hielmstierne
This letter of Hielmstierne is interesting not only for the information included, but almost as
much for what is left out. It reveals, in fact, that the circles of Danish-Norwegian learning still
lacked a dynamic co-ordinator to include able amateurs in the project.
Thus, in the newspaper Nordske Jntelligenz-Sedler published in Christiania (now Oslo), we
find in the issues dated 7 and 14 June 1769 that a professor of mathematics and fortification at
the military school in Christiania, Michael Sundt Døderlein (1740-1786) has attempted to
observe the phenomenon from a private house, but has seen nothing, due to cloudy weather.
Døderlein has been careful to ensure a clear view to the north-west (where – good weather
providing – the ingress stage would have been visible) as well as to the meridian in the south
and north. Furthermore, the owner of the house has offered him the opportunity to spend a
whole month adjusting the course of his clock and determining the co-ordinates of the site.
For all his practical skills and theoretical insights, Døderlein acted on his own initiative,
receiving no salary for his efforts.146
Another amateur of astronomy, who likewise appears to have received no official invitation to
make his observation, or salary, was a teacher of physics and Co-Rector at Roeskilde lærde
skole (an elite school preparing pupils for University), Hans Christian Saxtorph (17261787).147 On 3 June 1769 he observed the transit of Venus from his garden in Roskilde, only
about 30 kilometres from Copenhagen. One of his pupils, Andreas Christian Hviid (See
Section I.2.4), remembers how Saxtorph “made sure that we in the highest class observed it
[i.e., the transit of Venus] in his garden, with his own telescope, after he had prepared us well
146
Nordske Jntelligenz-Sedler, No. 23., Onsdagen den 7. [scripsi; 6. ed.] Juni 1769, “Følgende er til
Bogtrykkeriet indsendt”, and No. 24., Onsdagen den 14. Juni 1769, “Følgende indrykkes efter Begiering”.
147
According to Hundrup 1854, p. 266, Saxtorph‟s formal education was as a theologian.
- 261 -
and instructed us concerning this astronomical phenomenon”.148 No record of Saxtorph‟s
observation – evidently quite successful – is to be found in the official reports of DanishNorwegian Venus transit observations. Another observation on Danish soil was made by an
anonymous observer using a 6½-inch telescope “a few miles north of Copenhagen”. An
account of this observation was published in Kiøbenhavns Adresse-Contoirs Efterretninger on
5 June 1769,149 but the observer lacked a proper clock for the time-keeping and could only say
that the exterior contact at ingress took place approximately 8 o‟clock in the evening, whereas
the interior contact was spoiled by clouds. In the Danish almanac, this contact had been
predicted to take place at 7.32 pm, a gross miscalculation on the part of the Astronomer
Royal, which the anonymous reporter did not fail to point out.150
Another curious piece of information is found in a letter from Nils Schenmark (1720-1788),
Professor of mathematics at the University of Lund, to Wargentin. Schenmark had written to
his correspondent “Professor Lous”151 (yet again not Horrebow!) in Copenhagen to hear news
of observations from Danish and Norwegian soil. Professor Lous reported the following from
Copenhagen:152
In Copenhagen, three companies had gathered: at Rundetårn; at another, private
observatory; and at Fredriksberg [...]. All three were within sight of each other
and could give each other signals in order to observe the difference of their
clocks. The first [exterior] contact was recorded at the private observatory at
8:01:35 [pm] o‟clock with a two-foot Gregory-type reflection telescope that
showed the objects roughly 120 times larger, as well as a nine-foot Dollond that
148
Andreas Christian Hwiid, Udtog af en Dagbog holden i Aarene 1777-1780 paa en Reise igennem Tyskland,
Italien, Frankrige og Holland, Copenhagen 1787, entry on 10 July 1777, quoted from Hviid 2005, p. 56:
“Veneris Gang giennem Solen troer jeg aldrig at være bleven observeret bedre af nogen Student ved
Universitetet, end han sørgede for, at vi i den øverste Classe i hans Have med hans egen Teleskop observerede
den, efter at han i Forveien tydeligen havde bibragt os et klart Begreb derom”.
149
Kiøbenhavns Kongelig alleene privilegerede Adresse-Contoirs med Posten forsendende Efterretninger, 1769.,
11. Aargang, No. 83, Mandagen den 5te Junii, “Veneris synlige Gang forbi Solens Skive, saaledes som den saaes
Aftenen den 3 Junii fra Klokken 8 til 8 ½, faa Miile Norden for Kiøbenhavn”.
150
Kiøbenhavns Kongelig alleene privilegerede Adresse-Contoirs med Posten forsendende Efterretninger, 1769.,
11. Aargang, No. 106, Fredagen den 14 Julii, “Svar paa en Skrivelse i No. 103 i Anledning af Veneris Gang
forbi Soelens Skive, for saavidt angaaer Forfatteren af Observationen No. 83”. The almanac in question was
surely Dansk Historisk Almanak, udgiven af Det Kongelige Videnskabernes Societet, 23 volumes, Copenhagen
1760-1782; cf. Lomholt vol. III, 1960, pp. 119-129, especially p. 127.
151
Probably Christian Carl Lous (1724-1804), a Professor of mathematics in the Danish marine since 1760,
inventor of improved compasses and other instruments and author of several textbooks on navigation.
152
Schenmark to Wargentin, dated Lund 31 August 1769 (CVH Stockholm): “J Köpenhamn hafva trenne
Sälskaper förenat sig: På runde torn, på et annat privat observatorio, och på Fridrichsberg (et Kongl. Lustslott
som är belägit på en högd rätt i vester, ungefär ½ mil ifrån Köpenhamn); alla desse tre Kunde se til hvarandra,
och göra hvarandra signal för at observera Urens skilnad. På det private Observatorio befants primus contactus
Kl. 8. 1′. 35″ med en 2 fots Gregoriansk Reflexions tub som viste objecterna vid pass 120 gånger större, och en
Dollondsk 9 fots tub som förgrossade 150 gr. På de tvänne andra ställen skola de hafva observeradt primus
contactus några Secunder senare.”
- 262 -
enlarged 150 times. The first contact is said to have been observed a few
seconds later at the two other places
The Copenhagen observations were probably encumbered with some incertainty. The very
first contact of Venus with the limb of the Sun, it will perhaps be remembered, was
considered extremely difficult to observe (see Section II.1.2).153 However, in one of his
manuscripts, Sajnovics has collected excerpts concerning Venus transit observations from
Kiøbenhavns Adresse-Contoirs Efterretninger, as well as other newspapers. The manuscript
contains details of observations from Altona (by a “Professor Profe”),154 Tondern (i.e. Tønder,
by “the mathematician Peter Lorenzen”) and Kiel (anonymous)155 – all places under Danish
rule at that time. Other observations figuring among Sajnovics‟ excerpts were made in
Leipzig (“the mechanicus and opticus of the University, Mr. Christian Fridericus Ernst
Reinthaler”) and Rostock (“Professor Becker” and others).156 Of all these observations, there
is only one that has found its way into Woolf‟s tabulation.157
Although it would be futile to blame the Danish Society of Sciences for not publishing all
these observations, nevertheless, the fact that it did not publish any of them at least indicates
that amateurs of science were excluded from, rather than invited into the project by the
leading scientific body in Denmark-Norway. If someone had taken on the responsibility of
distributing the necessary sets of instruments, along with instruction leaflets as to how the
phenomenon was to be observed, to colleges and other institutions of learning, DenmarkNorway could easily have boasted more than one single successful Venus-transit observation
from 1769 – that of Maximilianus Hell and his colleagues in Vardø.
153
In an earlier letter, dated Lund 16 July 1769, Schenmark informs Wargentin that (CVH Stockholm): “Uti
Tyska Avisorna angifves contactus exterior vara observerad i Köpenhamn kl 8. 1′. 30″, hvarvid göres följande
anmärkning: Doch hat man ursache zu glauben daß diese berührung noch etwaß Zeitiger begonnen, und das
starke beben des Sonnenrandes die frühere bemerkung verhindert hat.” = “The [first] exterior contact is in the
German newspapers reported to have been observed in Copenhagen at 8:01:30 o‟clock, to which record the
following remark has been added: „There are, however, reasons to believe that this contact began somewhat
earlier, and that the strong undulation of the limb of the Sun has prevented it from being observed earlier‟”. One
notes the discrepancy of several seconds between this source and the letter of 31 August.
154
Probably Gottfried (Godofredus) Profe (1712-1770), who served as a professor at the gymnasium in Altona
from 1740 to his death (cf. Hundrup 1854, p. 48).
155
Probably the observation of Johann Friedrich Ackermann (1726-1804), professor of medicine and director of
the astronomical observatory of Kiel. In 1770, he published a Commentarius observationum physico
astronomicarum et meteorologicarum, which – according to the review in Jenaische Zeitungen von Gelehrten
Sachen LXXVIII. Stück, Freytags den 28. September 1770, pp. 650-651 – contained his observations of both the
Venus transit and the solar eclipse of 1769. See also Bernoulli 1771a, pp. 160-161.
156
Sajn., MS [no heading, starting with the words] “Ex novellis Altonensibus…” (1769-70).
157
See Woolf 1959, p. 184, under “Kiel”. Sajnovics‟ MS contains details for both the exterior and interior
contact of ingress, whereas Woolf in his table lists only “I,2”.
- 263 -
Admittedly, with the Venus transit project of 1769 Denmark-Norway succeeded in gaining at
least some publicity as a proponent of science. The polite expressions of thanks from Lalande
and Mayer have already been mentioned. Much more influential, however, was no doubt the
report of Hell. A brief glance at the title page of the Copenhagen edition immediately reveals
the identity of the sponsor; in fact, the words OBSERVATIO and CHRISTIANI VII provide the
most conspicuous information of the entire title (See Figure 8).158 There then follows a
dedicatory preface five pages long, which constitutes a veritable eulogy of the King of
Denmark and Norway as a supporter of the sciences. In the concluding lines of the report Hell
again returns to the role of the Danish monarch, stating that159
these were the data of the transit of Venus, and that which is of relevance to it,
which were recorded in Vardø under a favourable sky. If these, as I hope, along
with the accurately recorded data of other astronomers, particularly those in the
southern part of America, in due time form the basis for a certain and
indisputable definition of the solar parallax, the World of Learning and men of
erudition for all Posterity will certainly owe their immortal eulogies and deepest
gratitude to His Most Clement and Redoubtable Majesty, King CHRISTIAN
VII, under whose auspices and thanks to whose most lavish funding of this
scientific expedition the extremely subtle – and to the Republic of Letters so
important, though since the creation of the world until now not yet sufficiently
resolved – investigation of the quantity of the solar parallax (that is, the true
distance of the Earth from the Sun) has found its solution once and for all.
Furthermore, as any person of learning is perfectly well aware, dependent on
this result is a more accurate knowledge of the true extent of our planetary
system, the action that the celestial bodies have upon each other, their
movements, periodic orbits, etc.; from which knowledge innumerable benefits
will be harvested to the benefit of the human race.
158
Hell 1770a1, title page. Sajnovics‟ diary shows that the idea of inserting the expression auspiciis potentissimi
ac clementissimi Regis Daniæ et Norvegiæ, CHRISTIANI VII. (“under the auspices of the highly powerful and
highly beneficient King of Denmark and Norway, Christian VII”) into the title originated from the Astronomer
Royal, Christian Horrebow (Sajn.‟s diary, 23 November 1769: “Vesperi aderat D. Horebow. qui Titulum
Observationis Veneris edendæ legens, voluisset poni Jussu Regis &ce:”). In the audience with the King on
29 November 1769, Hell asked His Majesty whether he would allow the report to be dedicated to him (Sajn.s
diary, 29 Nov. 1769: “Rogante Rdo P. Hellio ut Observationem transitus Veneris typis exscribendam Suo Regio
Nomini dedicari pateretur reposuit. Wird mir lieb seÿn”).
159
Hell 1770a1, p. 82: “Atque hæc sunt momenta illa tum Transitus Veneris, tum ad hunc spectantia, quæ Cœlo
favente Wardoëhusii obtenta sunt; si ex his, ut spero, cum ceterorum Astronomorum, cumprimis ad plagam
australem Americæ obtentis præcisis momentis certa, atque indubia quantitas Parallaxeos Solaris suo definiatur
tempore, erit profecto quod orbis litteratus, totaque doctorum virorum posteritas habeat, unde Regi
Clementissimo, Potentissimo CHRISTIANO VII. & laudes immortales, & summas debeat gratias, cujus
auspiciis, & amplissimis in Expeditionem hanc Litterariam prufusis sumptibus, summi in Republica Litteraria
momenti, nec ab orbe condito usque nunc satis unquam solutam subtilissimæ inquisitionis quæstionem.
Quantitatem scilicet certæ Parallaxeos Solaris, seu veræ distantiæ telluris a Sole, definitam, certamque habebunt;
Ex qua totius Systematis Planetarii veræ magnitudinis, actionum horum corporum cœlestium invicem, motuum,
orbiumque periodicorum &c. certiorem pendere notitiam, ex hac vero notitia innumera in genus humanum
derivanda emolumenta, nemo Doctorum est, qui ignoret”.
- 264 -
Arguably, these concluding lines are no more than an echo of the impression given on the title
page, that it was the “observation of Christian VII” (Observatio … Christiani VII) that the
report was all about.160 While a modern reader may be quick to dismiss this as mere flattery, it
was certainly not considered insignificant in a Europe still under the Old Regime.
Needless to say, Hell continued to express his gratitude to the Danish monarch even after he
had returned to Vienna. In his first treatise on the solar parallax, for example, we find him
stating that he has determined it to within a margin of error of 1/870, or 8.70 ±0.01″; adding
that astronomers now161
have cause to convey to eternal memory the munificence of Kings and Rulers,
owing above all their immortal gratitude to the highly supreme King of
Denmark, Christian VII, thanks to whose munificence and auspices – and most
wise government‟s careful organisation and support – they have obtained the
observation from Vardø, as complete and perfect as may be achieved, an
observation which, along with the highly successful observation of the
Englishmen in Tahiti, will serve as the safest of bases, and the firmest of
fundaments, upon which the entire definition of the parallax rests.
Furthermore, to judge from the introductory chapter of the Expeditio litteraria ad Polum
arcticum, edited below, we may safely conclude that this encyclopædic work on northern
Norway would not, had it materialised, have allowed its readers to forget the role played by
the Danish monarch in 1769.162
When consulting the publications of British and French astronomers in the aftermath of 1769,
we find that the propaganda of Denmark-Norway did in fact have a certain impact. The
presence of Father Hell in Vardø meant that the participation of the Danish-Norwegian state
could no longer be neglected. On the British side, the Oxford Professor of Astronomy,
Thomas Hornsby, is known to have been calculating the solar parallax. In his published and
160
Admittedly, the praise of the King in the concluding lines of the report is the only element that was included
in all subsequent editions of the report. Neither the reprint in the Nova Acta Eruditorum (Hell 1770a2) nor that in
the Eph.Astr. (Hell 1770a4) included the dedicatory preface to the King, and the same applies to the Danish and
German translations (Hell 1770a3; Hell 1793). What is more, the expression “auspiciis … Christiani VII” is
omitted in the Eph.Astr. reprint and therefore also in the German translation, which bases itself upon that edition
(Hell 1770a4; Hell 1793). See also Table 5 (at the end of Section II.3.2 below).
161
Hell, De Parallaxi Solis ex Observationibus Transitus Veneris Anni 1769 1772, p. 108: “habent [scil.
Astronomi], unde Regum, & Principum munificentiam æternæ comendent memoriæ, sed cumprimis
Augustissimo Daniæ Regi Christiano VII. immortales debent gratias, cujus munificentia & Auspiciis, Ejusque
Ministerii Sapientissimi cura & favore Wardhusianam obtinuere observationem, eamque completissimam
[scripsi; completissimum ed.], perfectissimamque, cui tanquam basi tutissimæ, fundamentoque firmissimo una
cum observatione Anglorum Taïtensi absolutissima negotium omne definitæ Parallaxeos innititur […]”.
162
See Chapter III.3, especially §. 5.
- 265 -
unpublished works on the subject he clearly rates Hell‟s data highly, though he fails to
mention on whose behalf this observer had travelled to Vardø.163 However, when some of the
most authoritative periodicals of continental science published Hell‟s results – the Nova Acta
Eruditorum of Leipzig and the Journal des Sçavans and Journal encyclopédique of Paris – the
editors were careful to emphasise the identity of the sponsor.164 The review in the Journal des
Sçavans even went so far as to state that:165
Astronomy, which has owed so much to the King of Denmark from the
sixteenth century onwards, is on this occasion obliged to Him once more, for a
most meticulous and important voyage: this monarch could have made no better
choice than to employ Father Hell for this mission; we have had occasion more
than once to comment on how much this astronomer has been a credit to the
sciences, and this voyage is proof that his zeal equals his learning.
In similar terms, the Journal encyclopédique foresaw that “the success of this undertaking
[…] will serve to immortalise the glory of the Monarch”.166 The prestige invested in the
expedition, then, paid off in a certain sense. King Christian VII, who is remembered primarily
as the mentally ill, indecisive marionette of manipulative figures at court,167 on this occasion
received his share of praise as a supporter of the sciences. In fact, the historical significance of
his sponsorship of Father Hell‟s expedition was compared to the achievements of Tycho
Brahe, another client of the Danish kingdom.168
163
Hornsby “The Quantity of the Sun‟s Parallax, as deduced from the Observations of the Transit of Venus, on
June 3, 1769” 1772. Extracts from a manuscript (“Radcliffe MS 7”) containing the details of Hornsby‟s
calculation is available on the web pages of the Museum of the History of Science in Oxford,
http://www.mhs.ox.ac.uk/venus/html/gallery/prints.htm (accessed 9 January 2008).
164
Hell 1770a2 (editor‟s foreword), pp. 1-2; Journal des Sçavans, Septembre 1770, pp. 619-622; Journal
encyclopédique, Mai 1770, pp. 344-352. For the role of international journals of general science in the Republic
of Letters, see for example Bots & Waquet 1997, pp. 132-133; 143-148.
165
Journal des Sçavans, Septembre 1770, p. 622: “L‟Astronomie qui eut dès-le 16e siécle de si grandes
obligations au Roi de Dannemarck lui doit encore dans cette occasion le voyage le plus curieux & le plus
important; ce Prince ne pouvoit mieux choisir qu‟il n‟a fait en donnant au P. Hell cette mission; nous avons eu
occasion de remarquer plus d‟une fois combien ce célébre Astronome avoit bien mérité des Sciences; ce voyage
est une preuve que son zéle égale son sçavoir”.
166
Journal encyclopédique, Mai 1770, p. 345: “Le succès de l‟entreprise qui servira à perpétuer la gloire du
Monarque”. See also the widely-read afterword to the posthumously-published account of the expedition of
Chappe d‟Auteroche to Baja California, where the expedition of Father Hell is listed as one of the three most
important expeditions world-wide in the year 1769 (the other two being Chappe d‟Auteroche‟s and Captain
Cook‟s) and the skills of Father Hell are praised with the comment that “[l]e choix du Souverain Danois ne
pouvoit qu‟être digne d‟éloge dans cette occasion” = “the choice [of Father Hell] by the Danish Sovereign could
not be worthy of anything but praise on this occasion” (J.-D. Cassini, “Histoire abrégée de la parallaxe du soleil”
1772, pp. 150-151, here p. 151).
167
For his biography, see now Langen 2008 (in Danish).
168
The reference to Tycho Brahe is implicit in the review in Journal des Sçavans, quoted above, and virtually
explicit in the dedication to the King in Hell‟s Observatio Transitus Veneris (1770a1, pp. [i]-[vi]).
- 266 -
The success was short-lived, however. Jean (Johann) Bernoulli III, editor of the Recueil pour
les Astronomes, wrote to Wargentin in 1772:169
May I be so bold as to ask You again whether You cultivate a correspondence
with any astronomer in Denmark and if You could obtain for me some news
from that country? If I am to believe a two-leaf brochure – in French, but
published in Germany – about the state of science in Denmark, Astronomy is
scarcely cultivated there at the moment.
Bernoulli soon developed an impressive network of correspondents, but appears never to have
opened a correspondence with either Christian or Peder Horrebow, using instead Kratzenstein
and to some extent Hell and Wargentin, as witnesses for activities in Denmark.170
It is known that minister Thott had hoped that Hell was to accomplish a “full reform” of
Danish astronomy.171 This reform had to wait several years, and it was not accomplished by
Father Hell. Not until Peder Horrebow the Younger was dismissed in 1778 and Thomas
Bugge took over the chair as Astronomer Royal at Rundetårn in Copenhagen, did the
reputation of Danish-Norwegian astronomy abroad start to increase. That epoch lies beyond
the scope of this thesis, however.
169
Bernoulli to Wargentin, dated Berlin 17 May 1772 (CVH Stockholm): “Oserois-je vous demander encore si
vous êtes en correspondance avec quelque Astronome en Danemarc et si vous pourriés me procurer des
nouvelles de ce pays? si j‟en crois une brochure de deux feuilles françoises mais publiées en allemagne sur l‟état
des sciences dans le Danemarc, l‟astronomie n‟y est gueres cultivée actuellement”.
170
Cf. Bernoulli 1771b-1779b.
171
Sajnovics‟ diary, entry on 19 October 1769, Copenhagen (WUS Vienna): “A Com: Toth Vocati [ad] eundem
post 9am adivimus horæ spatio multa hilariter et gaudenter locutus. plenam Astronomiæ Danicæ reformationem à
R. P. Hell fieri optabat.” = “Invited by Count Thott we went to him after 9 o‟clock and had a nice and goodhumoured conversation with him that lasted for about an hour. He hoped that Honourable Father would bring
about a full reform of Danish astronomy”.
- 267 -
FIGURE 8
TITLE PAGE OF MAXIMILIANUS HELL‟S OBSERVATIO TRANSITUS
VENERIS … WARDOËHUSII … FACTA (HELL 1770a1)
The first edition of the Venus transit report from Vardø leaves no room for doubt about the
identity of the sponsor of Hell‟s expedition. Translated into English, its title is: „Observation
of the Transit of Venus in front of the Disc of the Sun, made in Vardøhus on 3 June in the year
1769, under the Auspices of the Redoubtable and most Clement King of Denmark and
Norway, CHRISTIAN VII, and read to Royal Society of Sciences in Copenhagen by
Honourable Father Maximilianus Hell of the Society of Jesus, Royal and Imperial Astronomer
at the University of Vienna, Member of the Royal Society of Sciences in Copenhagen and in
Trondheim, and Corresponding Member of the Royal Academy of Sciences in Paris‟
Digitised by the author.*
- 268 -
II.2.5 ASSESSMENT OF VENUS TRANSIT ACTIVITIES IN THE NORDIC
REGIONS
The above account of activities in the Nordic regions has followed a deliberately descriptive
line. This choice has resulted in at least two achievements. On the one hand, information
concerning a number of individual actors whose impact on the Venus transit projects has
scarcely been described in the international literature before, is now available to nonScandinavian readers. On the other hand, some of the sources presented here have not – to the
best of my knowledge – been published in historical studies before, in any language.
In the historiography of science, studies focusing on representatives of a particular nation
have long been the order of the day. True, there is a certain emphasis on Denmark-Norway in
the present investigation. However, this study has also attempted to follow a comparative
perspective. From a contemporaneous point of view, the Nordic region was indeed conceived
as a single area, with similar geographical advantages as far as the Venus transits were
concerned. At the same time, the challenges were very similar in the various countries; no
institutionalised infrastructure for science existed in the remote regions that were best suited
for observations of the transit. This situation either called for the use of local amateurs of
science, or it meant that professional astronomers had to be dispatched on scientific
expeditions. Denmark-Norway opted for the second solution: attempts to include amateurs in
the project were half-hearted at best. Sweden (including Finland) pursued a combination of
the two, with great success. Russia also followed a sort of combination – at least in 1769 –
although professional academicians dominated the scene. The advantages of Sweden‟s choice
seem obvious: although the procedures of calculating the solar parallax and some of the
theoretical questions concerning the planet Venus were very complicated, the observation
itself was not. By including amateurs of science in the project, then, the Swedish Academy of
Sciences succeeded in providing the international community of astronomers with
observations from a much larger area than the professionals could possibly have managed on
their own, without risking the quality of the observations. Thus, by paying attention to the
aspect of „dilettantism‟ a crucial difference between the activities and achievements in the
three Fennoscandian states has emerged.
The comparative perspective in the present account has also included a glance at the
significance of the Venus transit projects in terms of national pride. It was evident to every
- 269 -
person of learning that the efforts of Denmark-Norway in conjunction with the 1761 transit of
Venus had been anything but impressive. The low reputation of Danish astronomy among the
Great Powers of contemporary astronomy, combined with Russian and Swedish plans for
expeditions close to the borders of northern Norway that took shape during the first half of
1767, are likely to have been impulses leading to the government in Copenhagen taking
action. For geopolitical as well as purely astronomical reasons, Vardø was a natural choice to
station an observer: for ages, it had been the site of a fortress and a Norwegian garrison
marking the presence of the Danish-Norwegian state vis-à-vis the empires of Sweden and
Russia; in the quest to find the solar parallax, it had been singled out as an ideal place for
observations – implicitly by French and explicitly by British astronomers. Efforts to win
international recognition for the King of Denmark and Norway as an „enlightened monarch‟
and a „Father of the Sciences‟ by inviting Maximilianus Hell were at least partly successful,
although in the ensuing debates over the solar parallax the reputation of Hell was to become
slightly more ambiguous than it had been before (see Chapter II.3).
The differences between the countries cannot be explained by paying attention to sociopolitical strucures alone. The individual actors holding key positions in society – the
secretaries of the Royal Academies and Societies, the „Royal Astronomers‟ and other
influential professors in various mathematical fields – have been seen to have the potential
either to inspire activity or to cause stagnation. Comparing Horrebow with Wargentin, and
Lomonosov with J. A. Euler, has facilitated insights into the contrasting stories of Venus
transit activity in Denmark versus Sweden, and in 1761 versus 1769.
When Woolf writes that “Russian interest in the second transit of Venus was even greater than
it had been for the first”,172 this suggests a continuity within the Imperial Academy of St.
Petersburg throughout the 1760s. This suggestion is plainly wrong. Instead, the integration of
the Imperial Russian Academy of Sciences in the international Venus transit enterprise turned
from slow, hesitant „re-activity‟ in 1761 to swift, determined „pro-activity‟ at the very top
level in 1769. One might argue that Russian participation in 1761 would in any case have
suffered from the ongoing Seven Years‟ War, which attracted resources and attention that
might otherwise have been directed towards scientific events. However, the same might be
said of Sweden, another participant in the same war. Here, however, scientific activity
172
Woolf 1959, p. 179.
- 270 -
remained at a very high level in both 1761 and 1769. Thus, one cannot escape the individual
actor as a plausible explanation for the change of focus within the Academy of St. Petersburg
from 1760-61 to 1767-69.
International publicity has formed part of the descriptive aims of this chapter. By paying
attention to how swiftly or slowly the data were published, and in what languages and
formats, there are hints as to how actively the individual actors engaged themselves in the
scientific debates of the Republic of Letters. There is a giant leap from the weak publicity
surrounding Danish activities in 1761 to the universal interest in Hell‟s expedition in 1769,
and an equally giant leap from the slow, reluctant and unsystematic publication of Russian
results in 1761 to the swift, determined and systematic way in which the results of the project
of 1769 were published. Again, these shifts cannot be fully understood without taking
individual factors into account.
Following these general analytical points, it is time to proceed to the details of observations
made in 1761 and 1769. For the sake of brevity, Russia‟s observations will be omitted here
and I shall content myself with a closer look at observations in Fennoscandia. The criteria are
the same as those followed for Hell‟s Ephemerides above (Section II.1.5).
In 1761, according to Woolf, successful Venus transit observations were made by twenty
individual observers in Sweden (including modern Finland). In addition, one observation was
made by a Swedish astronomer in France, giving a total of 21 observers distributed over
eleven sites. Woolf has found evidence for the Swedish observations in the German
translation of the proceedings of the Royal Academy of Stockholm, as well as in the Histoire
de l’Académie Royale des Sciences of Paris.173 The original proceedings were, however,
published in Swedish. Accordingly, I have cross-checked Woolf‟s table against the issues of
Kungl. Vetenskaps Academiens Handlingar dating from 1761. In this periodical, two papers,
one by Wargentin and the other by Hellant, present the entire harvest of the Venus transit
observations made on Swedish and Finnish soil that year.174 The observations reported in the
two papers are summarised in Table 3a, where my findings are compared to Woolf‟s study in
a similar fashion to Table 1 above. As we can see, there were a total of 26 individual
173
Woolf 1959, pp. 135-139.
Wargentin “Observationer På Planeten Veneris gång genom Solens Discus, d. 6 Junii 1761” 1761a; Hellant
“Venus i Solen, Observerad i Torne Den 6 Junii 1761” 1761.
174
- 271 -
observations on Swedish and Finnish soil, not the 20 stated by Woolf. It might be advisable to
leave aside Mr. Frosterus observing from Cajaneborg, since his observation differs
considerably from that of the trained observer Planman. Other observations made at identical
sites, however, differ by only a few seconds between each other and should therefore have
been of value to contemporaneous astronomy. This gives 25 individual observations in
Sweden and modern Finland, instead of 20. In Table 3a the names of observers overlooked by
Woolf are highlighted. (The observation of Wilcke has already been identified in Table 1.)
A cross-check with German versions of the reports, used by Woolf, gives the same result. The
German edition is unabridged and the information is all there, the only difference being
minute differences in the spelling of some names of individuals and places.175 I do not know
what has led Woolf to overlook so many individual observations from Swedish and Finnish
soil. Perhaps German was not his strong point as a historian of science? In any case, the result
of this investigation only enhances the impression that the Royal Swedish Academy – in
particular its secretary – delivered a strong contribution to the Venus transit project of 1761.
The contribution on the part of Denmark-Norway in 1761 was not quite so strong. As stated
above, official participation from this power was limited to Christian Horrebow and his
assistants in Copenhagen, and to Bugge and Aaskow in Trondheim.176 Some initial details
concerning the observations in Copenhagen and Trondheim may be of interest. At Rundetårn,
Chr. Horrebow was the only observer to determine the interior contact at egress, although he
expressed some doubt concerning the accuracy of his own determination of this moment.177
His brother Peder had at that moment left the quadrant, which he was using to determine the
175
Compare Wargentin 1764a and Hellant 1764 vs. Wargentin 1761a and Hellant 1761.
According to the tabulation of Woolf, a third “Danish” observation was made by Heinsius in Leipzig and
published in the Novi Commentarii of the Imperial Academy in St. Petersburg (Woolf 1959, p. 137). This
Heinsius could be none other than Gottfried Heinsius (1709-1769), born in Naumburg an der Saale, teacher at
the University of Leipzig from 1734, professor of astronomy in St. Petersburg from 1736, and professor of
mathematics in Leipzig from 1743 until his death there in 1769. Thus, the identification of him as “Danish” is
surely a mistake.
177
Chr. Horrebow 1765a, p. 387: “man pleyer temmelig nøye at kunde bestemme den Tiid, naar Venus eller
Mercurius røre Solen indvendig, men jeg tør dog ikke forsikkre, at min Observation er gandske accurat, thi jeg
var saa forlegen for at vilde observere gandske nøye, at jeg just derover ikke blev i Stand til at giøre det; jeg sat
længe forud, forend Contactus skulde skee, og attenderede meget stærkt baade paa Venus og Solen, men herover
blev mit Øye saa træt og mat, at alting blindedes for mig, da Contactus skeede, saa der kan let være begaaet en
liden Feyl i min Determination” = “It is common to be able to determine quite accurately the moment when
Venus or Mercury touches the [limb of the] Sun internally. I cannot, however, be sure that my observation is
entirely accurate, for I was so concerned to make a completely accurate observation, that I for this very reason
became incapable of doing so; I sat at my telescope a long time ahead of the contact, paying intense attention to
both Venus and the Sun, but this exhausted my eye so thoroughly that my vision was completely blurred at the
time when the contact took place; so there may easily have been committed a small error in my determination”.
176
- 272 -
path of Venus, in order to mount a 17-foot telescope, which he intended to use for the
observation of the moments of contact. Before he had his telescope ready, however, “the
phenomenon was already over”.178 By the time the exterior contact at egress took place,
however, both brothers were ready. They both managed to determine the exact moment, and
they agreed to the second, according to Chr. Horrebow.179 This information is not found in the
publication of Lalande to which Woolf had access, however, only in the Danish report
published in 1765. If we turn to the Trondheim observation, careful reading of Lalande‟s
notice makes it clear that only Bugge‟s determination of the contacts at egress is stated;
nothing is said about any observations made by his assistant Aaskow.180 The name “Hascow”
may thus be deleted from the list of successful observations of the 1761 transit of Venus,
whereas Peder Horrebow perhaps merits a mention.181 Holm‟s observation should certainly be
included in this kind of table, even though it has been anonymised by Short.182 There may
have been more amateurs of science who observed the 1761 transit of Venus from various
places in Denmark and Norway, but since they – like Hammer – failed to have their
observations published in the standard periodicals of contemporary astronomy, they should in
any case be left out of tables like those of Woolf.
With these minor adjustments, the total number of successful observations of the 1761 transit
of Venus is raised to 130, instead of Woolf‟s 120, including a total of three, instead of two
individual observations on Danish and Norwegian soil (see Table 3b). Since the quantitative
contribution of Sweden and Finland has already been raised to 25 instead of 20 successful
observations, these minor adjustments can do nothing more than corroborate the picture that
has already been formed: Denmark-Norway evidently underestimated the importance of the
event in the contemporaneous Republic of Letters, and certainly lacked a dynamic „nodal
178
Chr. Horrebow 1765a, p. 387: “Contactum internum fik min Broder slet ikke at see, thi han var nyelig gaaet
fra Quadranten, som han den hele Tid observerede med for at opstille en Kikkert paa 17 Fod at giøre denne
Observation med; men inden Kikkerten blev opstilt, var allerede Phænomenon forbi”.
179
Ibid.
180
Cf. Lalande 1763, p. 114: “l‟on ne put observer que la fin, & même au travers des nuages: ce fut avec une
lunette de huit pieds que M. Bugge observa le contact intérieur en temps de la pendule 10 h 2′ 10″, & le contact
extérieur 10h 18′ 58″, ce dernier est moins exact que le premier, suivant le rapport de l‟observateur” = “it was
only possible to observe the end [of the transit], and even that through clouds. It was with a telescope of eight
feet that Mr. Bugge observed the interior contact when the clock indicated 10:02:10, and the exterior contact at
10:18:58. This latter moment is less exact than the former, according to the report of the observer”.
181
Cf. Woolf 1959, p. 137, where he has entered “Bugge & Hascow” as observers of E,1-2 in Trondheim, but
only “Horrebow” in Copenhagen.
182
Several of the observations that figure in Woolf‟s tables were made by anonymous observers, compare
Section II.1.5 above.
- 273 -
astronomer‟, such as Pehr Wargentin in Stockholm or Maximilianus Hell in Vienna, to pull
strings and bring amateurs of science into the fold.
As to the various observations in 1769, a few adjustments to Woolf‟s tables remain to be
made here as well. This year, Woolf tells us, fifteen individual observations were made on six
sites in Sweden and Finland.183 The number of individual observations of the 1769 transit on
Swedish/Finnish soil has been adjusted in Table 4a. A single observer in Stockholm –
Strussenfelt – has been overlooked. Woolf has also missed the observation made by a crew of
anonymous military officials at Hven, at the site of Tycho Brahe‟s old observatory in the
sound between Sweden and Denmark. A third point to make is that there is a four-second
variation in the determination of the exterior contact at egress, as observed by the crew of
observers in Hernösand, which therefore should be counted as two individual observations,
not just as one. Thus, where Woolf speaks of a total of “151 observers from 77 stations” in
1769, there is in fact evidence of 154 individual, successful observations made from 78 sites.
Of this total, eighteen (not fifteen) observations were made from seven (not six) sites in the
countries now known as Sweden and Finland.184
Not much remains to be adjusted as far as the observations from Danish and Norwegian soil
in 1769 are concerned. An investigation of observations preserved in manuscripts or in
newspapers aimed at the general public may be an interesting task in itself, since this would
give an idea of the general interest aroused by the Venus transits well outside professional
circles of learning. Nonetheless, such data sets do not merit insertion in the tables of
successful observations that made their way into standard publications of contemporaneous
astronomy. The only reason for including tabular corrections to Woolf‟s work is that there are
183
My counting on the basis of the table of Woolf 1959, pp. 182-187.
For reasons explained earlier, observations that are known to have been made from sites in Sweden and
Finland, but which failed to be published, have been omitted from the discussion here. This was the case in 1761,
when Wargentin ends his survey of observations by stating that: “Åtskillige andre Vittre Män hafva väl ock til
Kongl. Vetensk. Academ. insändt sina vid detta tilfälle gjorda Observationer, som i sig sielfve torde vara riktige
nog; men för någon ovisshet om Urets gång och rätta tiden, som härvid är så angelägen, kunna de ej med lika
säkerhet, som de föregående, nyttjas, och besparas därföre til vidare pröfning” = “Several other able men, it is
true, have also submitted to the Royal Academy of Sciences their observations made on this occasion, and these
appear to be reliable enough, but even so, because of some uncertainty concerning the running of the clock and
the true time, which is so crucial in this matter, they cannot be used with the same certainty as the preceding
ones, and will be saved for further testing” (Wargentin 1761a, p. 166). Similarly, an observation made by a
“Törnquist” at Frösön (near modern Östersund) is discussed in the correspondence between Wargentin and
Planman in the autumn of 1769, where uncertainty concerning time-keeping was also at stake (letter from
Planman to Wargentin in Stockholm, dated Åbo 17 November 1769 [CVH Stockholm]; this man is probably
identical to the surveyor Johan Törnsten, whose Frösön observation is mentioned in Lindroth 1967, vol. I.1, p.
408.
184
- 274 -
a number of inaccuracies in his summary of the observations made in Vardø by Hell,
Sajnovics and Borchgrevink. Consulting Hell‟s original report, we find that Hell and
Sajnovics observed the second, third and fourth contacts of Venus with the limb of the Sun,
not “I,1-2;E,1-2” (Hell) and “I,1-2;E,2” (Sajnovics) as stated by Woolf. Borchgrevink, on the
other hand, in fact observed all four contacts, not “I,2;E,2” only (See Table 4b).185
Such tables of successful observations have obvious limitations, as Woolf himself
concedes.186 For one thing, they tell only of successes and nothing about failures. A mere
glance at the tables might easily give the false impression that Danish-Norwegian activities
remained at the same level in 1761 and 1769, or even that there had been a decline (four
observers in two places in 1761; three observers at a single site in 1769). Bad weather has
wiped more than one observational effort out of the historiography. By focusing not only on
the successes but also on the planning and conducting of the observational attempts that were
actually made, a broader and more nuanced picture emerges.
185
Hell 1770a1, pp. 69-80, espec. pp. 78-79. Woolf states that he has not used Hell‟s original report, but the
summary in Newcomb 1890, pp. 301-305, for these data (Woolf 1959, p. 183). In these pages, Newcomb
compares the relevant pages of Hell‟s MS “Observationes Astronomicæ et Cæteræ Jn Jtinere litterario Viennâ
Wardoëhusium usque factæ” (1768-69) with the Vienna edition of his printed report (Hell 1770a4), paying
particular attention to the moments of interior contact as observed by the three observers. The discussion is
packed with details and intricate argumentation, making it easy for a layman to get lost. In the same work by
Newcomb, however, all the ingress and egress data from Vardø are inserted into a tabular overview of all the
successful observations made in 1769 (Newcomb 1890, pp. 364-371). For some reason, this tabular overview
appears to have been overlooked by Woolf.
186
Cf. Woolf 1959, pp. 141 & 188.
- 275 -
TABLE 3a
OFFICIAL SWEDISH REPORTS ON THE 1761 VENUS TRANSIT
COMPARED TO WOOLF 1959, pp. 135-140
TABLE 3b REPORTS ON DANISH-NORWEGIAN OBSERVATIONS OF THE 1761
VENUS TRANSIT COMPARED TO WOOLF 1959, pp. 135-140
- 276 -
TABLE 4a OFFICIAL SWEDISH REPORTS ON THE 1769 VENUS TRANSIT
COMPARED TO WOOLF 1959, pp. 182-187
TABLE 4b HELL‟S PUBLICATIONS ON DANISH-NORWEGIAN OBSERVATIONS OF
THE 1769 VENUS TRANSIT COMPARED TO WOOLF 1959, pp. 182-187
- 277 -
- 278 -
II.3 THE ROLE OF FATHER HELL IN THE VENUS TRANSIT
PROJECT OF 1769
Taiti & Wardhus binæ erunt columnæ, quibus veluti fulcris æneis innixa vera Solis
Parallaxis 8″,70 ad æternam Posterorum memoriam inconcussa servabitur, quamque
sera Posterorum ætas suis identidem decoratura est Palmis
- Maximilianus Hell, July 1772 1
Que pensés vous du P. Hell, l’avés vous vu observer, est il adroit, est il instruit? Je vois
avec un extreme regret que son observation de Wardhus ne s’accorde avec aucune autre,
et qu’il faut la rejetter
- Lalande in a letter to Boscovich,
10 March 1772 2
Maximilianus Hell’s role in relation to the second Venus transit of his century is certainly far
better known than his role in relation to the first. For more than a hundred years, the 1769
observations from Vardø were essential – albeit controversial – data sets in the international
quest to determine the solar parallax. As has already been explained (Sections II.1.1 and
II.1.2), it was desirable to obtain data from stations located as far apart as possible, a fact
which rendered observations from the European High North valuable in themselves. This was
particularly true for the transit of 1769 because that transit took place during the European
night, making it necessary to dispatch observers to the regions of the Midnight Sun in order to
catch the entire duration of the phenomenon. As a result, these parts received considerable
attention from the international astronomical community. However, while most efforts in the
“Lapland” area were spoiled by bad weather, Father Hell and his team had good weather
during the crucial stages of ingress and egress.
Maximilianus Hell’s Vardø observation – and the debates that followed in its wake – has been
described in various works on the general history of astronomy as well as in articles and
1
Hell, “De parallaxi Solis ex observationibus Transitus Veneris Anni 1769.” 1772, p. 109: “Tahiti and Vardø
will be the two columns upon which the true Solar parallax of 8.70 seconds will rest firmly and be preserved –
like upon pillars of bronze – to the eternal memory of Posterity, a memory which a distant past will decorate
again and again with its palms of victory”.
2
Letter printed in Varićak 1912, pp. ccclxxiii-ccclxxvi, here p. ccclxxvi: “What is your opinion of Father Hell,
have you seen him observing, is he able, is he well trained? I conclude with the utmost dismay that his
observation from Vardøhus is in accordance with no other, and that it has to be discarded”.
- 279 -
chapters of books of a more or less academic character.3 Among these works, there are some
re-assessments of the sets of data from Vardø, undertaken by professional astronomers.4 This
does not mean that all aspects of the story have been explored. For one thing, important
sources lie scattered in archives in various countries, posing practical (and economic)
challenges to the modern historian. Besides, there is the linguistic nature of the sources: apart
from series of lengthy and mathematically complicated treatises in a rhetorically charged
Latin, contemporaneous texts in French, Swedish, German, English and Russian call for
scrutiny as well. Add to the practical and linguistic challenges posed by the primary sources a
considerable amount of twentieth-century literature in Hungarian, Slovak, Danish and
Norwegian, and it is easy to see why most modern works on Maximilianus Hell’s role are
based upon a very limited selection of the secondary literature and hardly any of the primary
sources.
It is the aim of this chapter to revisit the primary sources surrounding Maximilianus Hell’s
Venus transit observation from Vardø and the ensuing debates concerning the solar parallax.
Given the exaggerated and highly contradicting accounts in the literature, it appears necessary
to go ad fontes in the old-fashioned way. This chapter will primarily be descriptive and
focused on clarifying details.
Most sections of this chapter may appear unnecessarily descriptive and detailed to the tastes
of most professional historians of science and its cultural aspects. The mode of writing results,
however, from a deliberate choice. It is my experience that precisely these kinds of details are
most cherished among those astronomers – be they amateurs or professionals – that are
interested in the history of their discipline. A concluding section (II.3.5) will address notions
found in previous studies on the Vardø observation of Maximilianus Hell and the debates that
followed in its wake, and probably appeal more to the historian by profession.
In terms of technicalities, a couple of remarks will perhaps be helpful. All references to Hell’s
Venus transit report from Vardø will be to the editio princeps (Hell 1770a1). Those who have
3
Works based upon scrutiny of primary sources: Pinzger 1920 (with a German summary in Pinzger 1927);
Kragemo 1933, 1960 and 1968; Sarton 1944; Nielsen 1957b; Ferrari d’Occhieppo 1957 and 1973; Woolf 1959,
pp. 176-178; Horský 1970; Pinsker 1971; Voje Johansen 2009; Aspaas 2010. Popularisations, based primarily or
exclusively upon secondary literature: Ashbrook 1984, pp. 218-221 (originally published in Sky & Telescope,
April 1961); Maor 2000, pp. 126-133; Kafka 2003, pp. 6-21; Aspaas & Voje Johansen 2004a; Botez 2004;
Steinicke & Brüggenthies 2004; Alnæs 2004, pp. 13-24; Thorvaldsen 2004, pp. 270-272.
4
For example Littrow 1835; Encke 1824 & 1837; Powalky 1864; Faye 1869a and 1869b; Newcomb 1883 and
1890; Nielsen 1957b.
- 280 -
another edition to hand are advised to inspect Table 5 at the end of Section II.3.2. Another
central source in the descriptive sections of this chapter is the so-called “Astronomical
Notebook” (Observationes Astronomicæ et Cæteræ Jn Jtinere litterario Viennâ Wardoëhusium usque factæ), covering the period from 27 July 1768 to 18 June 1769. All references
to this notebook are to the original kept at the Vienna University Observatory, which has yet
to be edited in its entirety. However, Littrow’s P. Hell’s Reise nach Wardoe (1835, pp. [15]84) and later works by Faye (1869b) and Newcomb (1883; 1890, pp. 301-305) include
substantial parts of this manuscript, and there are facsimiles of single pages to be found in
Nielsen 1957b; Aspaas & Voje Johansen 2004b; and Hansen & Aspaas 2005. Likewise, all
references to the travel diary and letters of Sajnovics are to manuscripts kept in the archives of
the Vienna University Observatory and the Hungarian Academy of Sciences respectively.
Littrow’s notoriously unreliable German translation of large parts of Sajnovics’ diary (1835,
pp. [85]-166) should be avoided.5 Readers of Hungarian may, however, consult the new
edition of the diary and letters of Sajnovics dating from 1990. As for the correspondence of
Hell, this is usually quoted from originals kept in various archives (See Unprinted Sources 1a
and 1b). Many of the letters quoted can also be found in the original language in works by
Pinzger (1920-27), Rabenalt (1986) and Vargha (1990-92). The listings of Unpublished
Sources towards the end of this thesis make up an implicit reference for quotes from letters
and other manuscripts.
II.3.1 TWO REJECTED INVITATIONS AND ONE ACCEPTED
Father Hell’s invitation to Denmark-Norway has been discussed in various works, amongst
them a short article by the author of this thesis (Aspaas 2008d). It has also been touched upon
in Sections I.2.3 and II.2.4 above. However, a couple of questions stand in need of being
addressed. The first question pertains to Hell’s claim to have received two invitations before
the ambassador of Copenhagen approached him in September 1767. Who were these inviters?
The second question has to do with another claim, that Father Hell had no contact with
Copenhagen prior to September 1767. Is this really true? An implicit question emerging from
both the preceding ones is why he, as an astronomer, accepted to go precisely to Vardøhus.
How might that promote his career?
5
This applies of course also to the Norwegian and Slovak translations of Littrow’s German version (Daae 1895;
Littrow 1977), although the comments of those editors are informative (See the footnotes and introduction of
Daae and the introduction by Tibenský in Littrow 1977).
- 281 -
As already explained, the 1769 transit of Venus was pre-calculated to take place during the
European night. To travel abroad for the occasion must have been a tempting idea to almost
any astronomer on the European Continent. In mainland France and on the British Isles, it
would only be possible to see the ingress of the transit. This implied that by taking recourse to
Delisle’s method (described in Section II.1.2), French and British astronomers who stayed at
home could still contribute to the project, even though expeditions overseas would be far
more likely to produce essential data sets. By contrast, most observatories in countries where
the Society of Jesus still persisted would miss the phenomenon entirely or the sun would be
too low above the horizon to allow for accurate observations.6 Their only possible
contribution would be indirect and by no means unique: staff at Jesuit observatories could, by
observing the solar eclipse of 4 June 1769, help establish the longitude of sites of observation
abroad. The prospect of the Central-European astronomer was thus somewhat different from
that of peers who lived further west.
In certain sources written by Father Hell, we find the intriguing statement that he – before he
received the invitation to go to Norway – had already rejected two similar invitations. The
question of the identity of these inviters is open to speculation.
As the Imperial and Royal Astronomer of Vienna, Maximilianus Hell used to fill a triple role.
He was involved in practical astronomy by making astronomical observations from his
observatory; he was calculating the ephemeris and publishing various treatises on theoretical
astronomy; and he was a networker (or ‘nodal astronomer’), instigating, coordinating and
publishing the observations of others. As has been described in Sections II.1.3 and II.1.4, he
contributed in all three ways for the Venus-transit project of 1761. As the next transit was
approaching, however, Hell’s plans were different. In his subsequently published report on his
Venus transit observation from Vardø, he tells us that he was intending to make no
observations himself, concentrating instead on the theoretical (and perhaps networking) part
of the project:7
6
The sole exception would be the Jesuits in Asia.
Hell, Observatio Transitus Veneris … Anno 1769. Wardoëhusii … facta 1770a1, p. 1: “Cum Anno 1767 nihil
minus in animum meum admitterem, atque causa futuræ Anno 1769 observationis celebris Transitus Veneris
ante discum Solis, mihi Vindobonæ invisibilis, Stationem meam, meumque observatorium, vel ad momentum
relinquere, atque ita obfirmato animo, deprecatis jam tum binis ad exteras partes invitationibus, quietus ex
observandis ab aliis Astronomis momentis supputationes Parallaxeos Solaris a me subinde suscipiendas, securo
jam animo Vindobonæ volverem […]” (my italics).
7
- 282 -
In the year 1767, nothing was further from my thoughts, than to leave – even for
a moment – my post at the observatory in order to observe the transit of Venus
in front of the Sun that was going to take place in 1769, invisible to me in
Vienna. Thus, having firmly made up my mind I had already rejected two
invitations to go abroad, intending instead to rest in Vienna and make
calculations of the solar parallax on the basis of data sets observed by other
astronomers [...].
Father Hell nowhere reveals the identity of those who had invited him to go abroad. This
should come as no surprise. In fact, administrative documents demonstrate that the authorities
in Copenhagen asked for secrecy when they gave the Viennese ambassador orders to contact
Hell.8 Thus, had he declined, it would certainly have been very difficult to find evidence for
such an invitation. As has been explained in Section II.2.4 above, the first meeting between
Hell and the Danish ambassador took place in Vienna 5 September 1767. If his own words are
to be believed, the Imperial Astronomer of Vienna had by that time already declined two
invitations, but from whom? Some colleague from the Society of Jesus would be a possibility,
or else some sponsor on national level. Father Hell explains that he saw his advanced age, the
dangers and difficulties of travelling, and concern for his own health as obstacles for
embarking upon an expedition,9 and that would make a sea voyage to a distant continent or a
long journey overland likely to have been rejected. Over the following pages, the possible
identity of the two inviters will be discussed. First, a possible Jesuit inviter will be discussed,
then the candidacy of a few national sponsors.
A Jesuit inviter of Hell may at first sight seem unlikely, since the Jesuits during this time were
encountering problems in several countries and the order as a whole had been pushed on the
defensive. Nevertheless, it is known that the most eminent Jesuit polymath of Hell’s
generation, Roger Joseph Boscovich, already in the spring of 1766 had made an agreement
with the Royal Society of London, whose member he was, to go to North America for the
transit of 1769 (Baja California in present-day Mexico was later fixed to be his site of
8
See Section I.2.3 above.
Cf. Hell 1770a1, pp. 1-2: “veluti ictu improviso infirmatus, non ætatem meam jam provectiorem, non itinerum
difficultatem, vitæque pericula, non denique debilioribus meis corporis viribus periculosam ad arctos cæli,
aërisque inclementiam magni pendens […], magno, intrepidoque animo iter ad Arctos petii” = “as though I had
been weakened by a surprising slap, not laying much weight on my already well advanced age, nor on the
difficulties of travelling, the risks to your life, or the danger imposed upon my feeble bodily strength by the
inclemency of the climate in the Arctic […], I embarked upon the journey to the Arctic in a lofty and fearless
spirit”. See also the introductory chapter of the Expeditio litteraria (edited in Chapter III.3 below), §. V: “I, who
because of my failing bodily strength twice already had rejected invitations to make a similar expedition, found
myself overwhelmed by the unexpected proposal presented by His Excellency Count von Bachoff”.
9
- 283 -
observation).10 Later in the same year, the Spanish government informed the British Royal
Society that they would allow Boscovich to travel through its dominions along with another
member of the Jesuit order.11 Could this fellow have been Father Hell?
Boscovich had stayed in Vienna for long periods in the late 1750s and early 1760s, and during
the mid-1760s he held a position as professor of mathematics at the collegium in Pavia, which
was under Habsburg rule.12 He surely must have met Hell at some stage. The historian of
Jesuit science Steven Harris points to the parallel roles of Hell and Boscovich in the design
and construction of astronomical observatories (Boscovich in Milan, Hell in Claudiopolis,
Tyrnavia and Vienna), and claims that “Boscovich was in contact with Hell” and other
founding fathers of observatories in the German assistancy in this context. Harris does not,
however, present any evidence for such contacts.13 By contrast, the Danish historian of
science Helge Kragh has, in his recent analysis of the scientific debates concerning the
spurious “moon of Venus”, pointed out that when Boscovich in 1767 published a work in
which he denied the existence of such a moon, he used a very similar argumentation to that
which Father Hell had used in his De Satellite Veneris, published only two years earlier (See
Section II.1.4). The work of Boscovich in question was even published by the same publisher
as Hell’s, Trattner in Vienna. Despite this circumstance, Boscovich does not mention the
work of his confrère by a single word. Contrary to Harris, therefore, Kragh concludes that
“there is no indication in the literature that Hell and Boscovich were in contact with one
another”.14
10
The President of the Royal Society, Charles Morton, sent Boscovich a letter of invitation early in 1766. In his
response, dated Pavia 9 May 1766, Boscovich expressed willingness to undertake the expedition (letter printed in
Tolomeo 1992, pp. 283-286). Only then was the formal decision to invite Boscovich taken by the Royal Society,
in a meeting on 5 June 1766 (according to Woolf 1959, p. 163). Rumour then spread quickly, and the plans for
Boscovich’s expedition is mentioned in for example a letter from Lalande to Weiss in Tyrnavia, dated Paris 14
October 1766 (printed in Vargha 1990, pp. 61-62).
11
Morton to Boscovich in Pavia, dated London 22 December 1766 (printed in Tolomeo 1992, pp. 298-299).
12
Boscovich visited Vienna in the period April 1757-March 1758 and again in January-May 1762 (Hill 1961, pp.
47-51 & 79; cf. pp. 79-83 on Boscovich’s period in Pavia).
13
Harris 1993, pp. 536-539, here p. 538.
14
Kragh 2008, pp. 84-86, here p. 85. The book by Boscovich in question is the Dissertationes quinque ad
dioptricam pertinentes (Vienna 1767; even reissued in German translation by Carolus Scherffer in the same
year). A detail that might be of interest is that Father Hell seems to have tried to make sure Boscovich read his
book on the moon of Venus. In a fragmentary draft for a letter that appears to be addressed to some Italian
astronomer (internal evidence points to the second half of the year 1765 as the time of writing), Hell goes into
details concerning the De Satellite Veneris, adding that (WUS Vienna, top of page beginning with the words
“claritatem variata”): “si Tibi cum Patre Boscovichio convenire datum fuerit, scio equidem Eum prima fronte
plura contra hæc mea prolaturum, utpote qui sententiam suam Hugenianam à me pag. 31. et 56 rejectam
defendere conabitur, sed Si id egerit, tum eum cervos in arboribus venaturum credam. […] Quæso num à
Parisinis eruditis nihil adhuc inaudivisti de mea dissertatione satellitis ♀. ego enim transmissis mense martio
duodecim Exemplaribus ad varios à nemine adhuc vel verbum responsi accepi, ut adeo mirer, quid Viris istis
- 284 -
Neither claim is entirely correct. In an online inventory of Boscovich’s correspondence,
published by the Commissione Scientifica Edizione Nazionale R.G. Boscovich in Milan, there
is in fact listed a single letter from Hell to Boscovich in Pavia, dated Vienna 27 February
1764.15 February 1764 was obviously well before the idea of an American expedition had
emerged, and the letter in question turns out to contain no mention of the coming Venus
transit. Furthermore, neither the satellite of Venus nor the construction of observatories is
mentioned, either. The wording of the letter yields clear evidence that the two were not close
colleagues or allies.16 Furthermore, this single extant letter from Hell to Boscovich contrasts
to 36 surviving letters addressed to the same man by Josephus Liesganig and thirteen by
Carolus Scherffer, both Viennese Jesuits engaged in astronomy and related topics (See
Subsection I.2.2.1 above).17 It might be added that in his elaborate Aurorae Borealis Theoria
eruditis factum sit, offensos non puto, qui tanta cum cautella de ipsis loquor. R. P. Noghera amantissime quæso
mei loco complectaris atque saluta. vale” = “If You get the occasion to meet Father Boscovich, I am confident
that he at first sight will raise a lot of objections against my point of view, for he will attempt to defend his own
opinion, which is in line with that of Hugenius, but rejected by me on pages 31 and 56 [cf. Hell 1765a].
However, if he does so, I should think he will be chasing deer in the treetops. […] Please tell me, haven’t You
heard anything yet from the savants of Paris concerning my dissertation ‘On the Moon of Venus’? You see, I
sent twelve copies to various scholars in March, but I haven’t yet received a word of response from any of them.
This makes me wonder what may have happened to these savant gentlemen. I do not think they are offended,
since I talk of them with such caution. Please give Honourable Father [Giambattista] Noghera a warm hug on my
behalf and bring him my regards. Farewell”.
15
http://www.brera.inaf.it/boscovich/progetto-sito/Nuovo_catalogo_lettere.doc (accessed 29 October 2008).
16
Hell to Boscovich in Rome, dated Vienna 27 February 1764 (digital copy kindly provided by Luca Guzzardi
of the Commissione Scientifica Edizione Nazionale R.G. Boscovich in Milan). The contents of the letter are as
follows: thanks for a work that Boscovich has sent as a present to Hell in Vienna through Father Noghera
(“munus hoc profundissimi ingenij partus eximius, etsi gratissimum ipsum mihi fuerit, multo tamen
jucundissima erat cogitatio, qua intelligebam mei, qui coram sæpius R[evere]ntiæ V[est]ræ admirator fueram,
memoriam qualemcunque haberi” = “even though this gift, a product of Your Reverence’s deeply subtle
intellect, was most welcome to me in itself, the most wonderful thing of all was that it made me aware that I,
who had so often publicly stated my admiration for Your Reverence, was in fact kept in some sort of
remembrance”, Hell adds); congratulations with Boscovich’s appointment as professor in Pavia; mention of
letters from Fathers Liesganig and Scherffer that are to be sent to Rome by the same mail; debates concerning
achromatic telescopes of Viennese and Parisian fabrication (Bianchi, Liesganig, Antheaulme and Clairaut
mentioned in this context); Hell’s dispute with Cassini de Thury concerning the degree of meridian between
Vienna and Paris; Pingré’s Observations Astronomiques pour la determination de la parallaxe du Soleil (Pingré
1763) and Hell’s reaction to this work (Mason and Lalande also mentioned in this context); promises to send as a
gift to Boscovich the latest volume of the Ephemerides Astronomicae, which contains Hell’s work on the use of
Jupiter’s satellites for meridian determination. In short, flattery and humble respect permeate the letter, not the
kind of familiarity and frankness that characterise Father Hell’s letters to most other colleagues.
17
Cf. http://www.brera.inaf.it/boscovich/progetto-sito/Nuovo_catalogo_lettere.doc (accessed 29 October 2008).
The Latin correspondence of Father Boscovich is currently being edited by Dr. Oreste Trabucco of the
University of Naples. As for Scherffer, the 1777 edition of his Institutiones astronomiæ theoreticæ contains
many references to Lalande, Lacaille, Halley, Boscovich and so forth, but none to his peers in Vienna. Despite
treating topics in which his colleague Hell ought to be considered an expert, he makes no reference to him. Thus,
when mentioning the story of the so-called satellite of Venus, he presents in brief the same explanation as Father
Hell had used in De Satellite Veneris, but without any reference (Scherffer 1777, p. 8). And while a brief section
is devoted to “De transitu Veneris, vel Mercurii infra discum Solis”, he quotes Lalande only as an authority on
the solar parallax and says that the parallax is probably 8.5 arc seconds “or perhaps even lower” (Scherffer 1777,
pp. 389-392, here p. 391).
- 285 -
Nova, published in 1776, Hell refers to the theories and observations of a wide range of
authors, but avoids mentioning that the famous Boscovich had treated the phenomenon in
several works.18 Boscovich’ silence on Hell’s De Satellite Veneris was thus ‘echoed’ by Hell
on that occasion. All this can be taken as strong indication, albeit not as definite proof, that
Maximilianus Hell can hardly have been on top of Father Boscovich’s list when he searched
for a companion for his expedition.
Further evidence is found in a selection of Boscovich’s correspondence that was published by
Rita Tolomeo in 1992. Among these letters, there is a section of 28 letters relating to the plans
for the Baja California expedition, dating from May 1766 to July 1767. Interestingly,
Maximilianus Hell is not mentioned by name in any of these letters. 19 Instead, it emerges that
the head of the Jesuit observatory in Vienna, Josephus Liesganig was invited by Boscovich to
be his travel companion. Liesganig failed, however, to obtain permission to participate in the
expedition from the Habsburg chancellor Kaunitz, who moreover was reluctant to grant
Boscovich the necessary leave from his position in Pavia.20 Boscovich then turned to the
Jesuit Christianus Mayer, court astronomer of Mannheim and – like himself – a fellow of the
Royal Society of London, asking him to join in the expedition instead of Liesganig. 21 The
abolition of the Jesuits from Spain and all her colonies in April 1767 brought an end to these
plans, and in a letter to Boscovich dated 12 May 1767, the president of the Royal Society
18
Hell, Aurorae Borealis Theoria Nova … 1776. Boscovich is known to have published works on the Aurora
Borealis in 1738 (De Aurora Boreali, anonymous dissertation published twice in the same year, Rome), 1747
(Caroli Noceti e Societate Jesu. De Iride et Aurora boreali Carmina Illustrissimo ac Reverendissimo Praesuli
Bernardino Giruadio dicata. Cum Notis Josephi Rogerii Boscovich ex eadem Societate, Rome), 1748 (“Dialoghi
sull’aurora boreale del P. Ruggiero Boscovich della Compagnia di Gesù lettore di Matematica nel Collegio
Romano”, in Giornale de’ Letterati per l’anno 1748, pp. 192-202, 264-275, 293-302, 239-336, 363-368; also
published as a separate booklet) and 1760 (Philosophiae recentioris a Benedicto Stay in Rom[ano] Archigymn[asio] Eloquentiae Profess[ore] versibus traditae Libri X, ad Sylvium Valentium Cardinalem amplissimum,
cum adnotationibus, et Supplementis P. Rogerii Josephi Boscovich S.J. in Collegio Rom[ano] Publ[ico]
Matheseos Professore Tomus II, Rome); cf. e.g. Tolomeo 1992, pp. 13-14; Lisac & Marki 1998, pp. 54-55; and
the online inventory http://www.brera.inaf.it/boscovich/progetto-sito/opere_a_stampa.pdf (accessed 30 October
2008).
19
See Tolomeo 1992, section on “Ruggiero Giuseppe Boscovich: Carteggio con corrispondenti diversi su
un’ipotesi di viaggio in California (1766-1767)”, pp. 281-386; cf. pp. 29-35 & 355-358.
20
After nearly three months of lobbying, Liesganig in a letter to Boscovich in Pavia, dated Vienna 26 February
1767, finally found himself forced to say “adieu Amerique!” (printed in Tolomeo 1992, pp. 311-312).
21
See the letter from Boscovich to Morton in London, un-dated but probably – to judge from Morton’s answer
of 12 May 1767 – dated 22 April 1767 (printed in Tolomeo 1992, pp. 319-320; cf. p. 321). Chr. Mayer mentions
plans to accompany Boscovich on this expedition in his long treatise on the Venus transit (Mayer 1769b, p. 84):
“deserta America, quo ab hinc biennio cum celebri P. BOSCOWICH, sumptibus Societatis Regiae Anglicanae
[…] abire debebam, me in hanc vrbem appulisse” = “… that I, having quitted America, which I two years ago,
financed by the Royal Society of England, was supposed to travel to, instead arrived in this city [i.e. St.
Petersburg]”.
- 286 -
effectively withdraws the invitation.22 I have not come across other plans of Venus transit
expeditions involving Jesuit astronomers prior to September 1767.
As for other possible inviters of Father Hell, one might as well proceed by using the method
of elimination. Sweden is not likely to have invited foreign observers, since the Swedish
Academy of Science had sufficient personnel within its own ranks and on top of that was
reluctant to invite foreigners for patriotic reasons;23 nor is France, for similar reasons; and as
for Britain, Maximilianus Hell was not a fellow of the Royal Society and is not known to have
been in personal contact with British astronomers prior to 1769. 24 Further possible sponsors
asking the Viennese court astronomer to travel to faraway territories would be Portugal or
Spain, but the fact that the expulsion of the Jesuits from their lands took place in JuneSeptember 1759 and February-April 1767 respectively makes such an invitation highly
unlikely. What is more, no Catholic power still favoring the Jesuit order – Austria included –
is known to have organised any Venus-transit expeditions whatsoever in 1769.
22
Morton to Boscovich in Pavia, dated London 12 May 1767 (in Tolomeo 1992, pp. 320-321).
A remark in the application for funding to the Swedish King (compare Section II.2.1) is especially revealing.
Here, Wargentin states that (quoted from Nordenmark 1939, pp. 375-376): “Allernådigste Konung! Skickelige
Män där til äro hos oss at tilgå, men medel til deras utrustande, när den tiden kommer, och til så många
Instrumenters anskaffande, vet Academien inga, utan nödgas nu strax bekänna för de utländska Academierne sin
oförmögenhet at i detta mål fullgöra deras åstundan, på det de i tid må vara betänkte, at sielfve hitsända några
Astronomer […]. Eders Kongl. Majestets höga ynnest för Vetenskaper, Nåd för Des Academie och ömhet om
Rikets heder vid et så besynnerligt tilfälle, torde ei tillåta Academien at göra för Utlänningar en sådan
bekännelse om sin oförmögenhet […]” = “Most gracious King! Able men are to hand in our country, but the
Academy possesses no funding either for their travel gear, when that time comes, or for acquisition of the
necessary number of instruments. Instead, the Academy will some day soon be forced to admit to the foreign
academies its inability to fulfil their wishes in this matter, so that the foreign academies may have the time to
consider dispatching some astronomers to us themselves […]. His Royal Majesty’s great care for the sciences,
His grace for His Academy and care for the honour of His kingdom in such an extraordinary case, would hardly
allow the Academy to make to foreigners such a confession of its poverty”.
24
When in the mid-1770s Hell was charged with the construction and equipping of a new observatory in Agria
(See Section I.2.4 above), he contacted the British Astronomer Royal Nevil Maskelyne, asking him to place
orders for instruments at the appropriate instrument makers’ in London (Hell to Bishop Eszterházy in Agria,
dated Vienna 22 August 1775 [Vargha priv.]). However, Maskelyne seems to have been slow or reluctant to
provide this help (letter from Hell’s student Joannes Madarassy to Bishop Eszterházy in Agria, dated Vienna 27
January 1776 [Vargha priv.]). The low priority given to the matter caused Hell to write to his confrère Chr.
Mayer, who had just finished the instrumentation of his new observatory in Mannheim, which consisted to a
large extent of English instruments. Having lost patience with Maskelyne, Hell asked Mayer to procure the
instruments from England on his behalf or at least to give advice on what instrument makers he could contact in
London (Madarassy to Bishop Eszterházy in Agria, dated Vienna 3 March 1776 [Vargha priv.]). Finally, on 23
April 1776 Hell writes that Maskelyne has at last responded to Hell’s request and given him a list of prices for
the various instruments needed (Hell to Bishop Eszterházy in Agria, dated Vienna 23 April 1776 [Vargha
priv.]). A year later, however, no instruments had yet arrived and a “Count Dormer” in London was asked to
urge the instrument makers as well as Maskelyne himself to speed up the process (Madarassy to Bishop
Eszterházy in Agria, dated Vienna 5 April 1777 [Vargha priv.]). Only in September 1777 – more than two years
after Hell first wrote to Maskelyne – could he inform the Bishop of Agria that the instruments had finally started
to arrive from England (Hell to Bishop Eszterházy in Agria, dated Vienna 8 September 1777 [Vargha priv.]).
The affair suggests that Maximilianus Hell lacked close contact with British astronomers, at least prior to 1775.
23
- 287 -
Paradoxically, if Hell received invitation from a national government or ruler, the situation in
Catholic countries around 1766/67 makes a non-Catholic power more likely to have been the
inviter. One such power with colonies overseas would be the Dutch Republic. Indeed, the
Verenigde Oostindische Compagnie (‘Dutch United East India Company’) is known to have
cooperated with Delisle concerning the planning of a Venus-transit observation from the
beaches of Batavia (present-day Jakarta) in 1761. By 1769, however, this situation had
changed. The resident amateur astronomer Johan Maurits Mohr (1716-1775) had in the
meantime, on his own initiative, constructed a private observatory and acquired high standard
instruments from Europe, without financial support from either the Compagnie or the state.
No other observations are known to have been made from Dutch colonies in 1769, and given
the business-oriented emphasis of the Dutch United East India Company, it appears unlikely
that it would be prepared to spend money on recruitment of foreigners for such a task. 25
Another possible inviter of Father Hell is the Imperial Academy of Sciences in St. Petersburg.
As has been explained (Section II.2.2), the academicians of Russia started planning their
expeditions already in the spring of 1767, and they were quick to call for help from abroad.
With the strong links between the St. Petersburg Academy and the German-speaking world, a
tempting conjecture would be that the leading astronomer of the Austrian Empire might have
been among those invited. However, I have been unable to find evidence of contacts between
Hell and the Academy of St. Petersburg in this period.26 One cannot rule out, however, that
Father Hell – or perhaps some correspondent of his – interpreted the general ‘call for
competence’ of Empress Catherine in the spring and summer of 1767 as a an invitation aimed
at the likes of himself.27
In the end, it was the French astronomer Chappe d’Auteroche that went to Baja California
along with two Spanish observers. They succeed to observe the Venus transit, but most of the
company – Chappe included – perished soon after from an epidemic disease. Boscovich
stayed in Italy and saw nothing of the Venus transit, whereas Father Mayer upon advice from
25
Zuidervaart & Van Gent 2004; Van Gent 2005.
Hell did in fact cultivate some contact with members of the academy in St. Petersburg in the early 1760s, as is
evident from some volumes of the Ephemerides Astronomicae (cf. e.g. the appendix of Anni 1762 [Hell 1761,
pp. 92-94]). Among the manuscripts of Hell in Vienna, letters exchanged between Hell and Gerhard Friedrich
Müller as well as Joseph Adam Braun have been found (cf. Unprinted Sources, 1a and 1b): Müller to Hell, St.
Petersburg 6 June 1761; Hell to Braun, Vienna 8 February, 31 March, 10 April & 5 May 1761; Braun to Hell, St.
Petersburg 5 May 1761. These letters all concern the Venus transit of 1761. Unfortunately, evidence for Hell’s
correspondence in the years 1765-68 is far more meagre than for the period around 1761.
27
See Section II.2.2 above.
26
- 288 -
Lalande became one of the Venus-transit observers financed by the Russian Academy of
Sciences in 1769 (See Section II.2.2). He was not invited until late in the year 1768, however.
In conclusion, the circumstances of the two invitations that the Viennese court astronomer
claims to have received – and rejected – prior to September 1767 remain mysterious. The
accepted invitation from Denmark, however, is well documented. The only problem is
whether Hell’s own words in this context are entirely reliable.
In the introductory chapter of the Expeditio litteraria ad Polum arcticum (edited in Chapter
III.3), Father Hell explains that the decision of inviting him had been taken unanimously
during a meeting between the three mightiest ministers in Copenhagen – Bernstorff, Moltke
and Thott. To Hell, however, the invitation from the Danish ambassador came as a total
surprise, for he had “so far never had any scientific correspondence (commercium litterarium)
with anyone in Denmark”. In rhetorical climax, the Viennese astronomer explains that he was
convinced that no one had even heard of his name “in that country, especially not in
Copenhagen, and even less so among the highest ministers at the King’s Court”.28
At this point Maximilianus Hell either has a failing memory or is deliberately concealing the
truth. Preserved at the Royal Library in Copenhagen is a letter in Hell’s own hand, dated
Vienna 5 October 1766 and addressed to Thomas Bugge, by that time an experienced
surveyor and cartographer.29 Hell opens the letter by thanking Bugge for a preceding letter
“especially because You, by means of that letter, have wished to initiate a truly erudite
scientific correspondence (pererudito commercio tuo litterario) from Your part”.30 It emerges
that Bugge had sent Hell his observation of a lunar eclipse 24 February 1766 from
Copenhagen, and Hell now urges him to observe also the moons of Jupiter, and to
communicate these as well as other observations to him in the future:31
trust me, nothing more agreeable happens to me, than when I, through scientific
correspondence (per commercium litterarium) obtain works by means of which
I am able to make my Ephemerides precious and useful to others.
28
See Hell’s unfinished introduction to the Expeditio litteraria (edited in Chapter III.3 below), §. V.
Letter printed in Pinzger 1927, pp. 3-5.
30
Pinzger 1927, p. 3: “Litterae tuae humanissimae juxta, ac doctissimae maximo me affecerunt gaudio, Vir
celeberrime, eo maxime nomine, quod his pererudito commercio tuo litterario initium dare volueris”.
31
Pinzger 1927, pp. 4-5: “crede, nihil mihi jucundius accidere, quam per commercium litterarium obtinere
labores hujusmodi, quibus Ephemerides meas aliis pretiosas, atque utiles reddere valeam”.
29
- 289 -
The flattery evidently went home. Correspondence between Hell and Bugge continued over
the years to come.32 Besides, in a report of Bugge, dated 8 January 1768 and preserved among
Otto Thott’s papers at the Royal Library in Copenhagen, the surveyor refers to Maximilianus
Hell as “the most learned and diligent astronomer of our age”.33 Bugge was later to emerge as
the Astronomer Royal of Denmark (appointed in 1777, after the death of Christian Horrebow
and subsequent removal of the Professor designatus, Peder Horrebow the Younger). As early
as 1759, at the age of 19, Bugge had become involved in the official survey of Denmark; in
February 1761, he had presented the results of his work to the Danish Royal Society, which
soon after hired him for future surveying; and later in the same year he had been entrusted
with the task of observing the transit of Venus from Trondheim.34 He was clearly a man with
influential supporters. In Copenhagen’s Royal Society, the prominent member Kratzenstein
certainly favoured the young Bugge (Section II.2.3). And the President of the Royal Society
had since 1763 been none other than Otto Thott, who was also the Obersecretair of Det
Danske Cancelli (in effect, Interior Minister of Denmark). The same Thott was one of the
three men responsible for Hell’s invitation, according to his own account. Perhaps Bugge was
the one who proposed Hell as a candidate for the Vardø expedition? There is a regrettable
lack of sources to answer these questions. However, Hell’s claim, that he had no commercium
litterarium with anyone in Denmark prior to 1767, is definitely not correct. It is difficult to
ascertain whether his claim of having received two previous invitations is exaggerated as
well.
Denmark-Norway’s reasons for inviting Father Hell to Vardø have been discussed in Sections
I.2.3 and II.2.4 above. From the astronomer’s perspective, a main reason to accept the
invitation must have been that Father Hell, as an expert on the transits of Venus, was well
aware of the advantages of being stationed on the northern shores of Lapland in June 1769.
He had himself undertaken calculations of the transit, and the region had, after all, been
32
Not all letters are intact. For a complete list of the letters that have been available for the present study, see
Unprinted Sources, 1a and 1b.
33
T. Bugge, “Observatio eclipseos lunaris, quæ anno 1768 tempore astronomico die 3 Januarii, tempore autem
civili die 4 Januarii contigit, factæ Havniæ”, manuscript signed “Havniæ d: 8 Januarii 1768” (KB Copenhagen,
MS Thott 822. 4o): “Eâdem Methodô observavi eclipsin lunæ die 24 Februarii anno 1766, quam communem feci
cum Clarissimo et Diligentissimo nostri ævi astronomo Windobonensi P. Maximiliano Hell. Celeberrimus hic
Vir meas observationes cum suis comparavit, et exinde reperiit Havniam a Wienna Austriæ distare versus
occidentem 17m. 27s in tempore” = “I used the same method to observe the lunar eclipse of 24 February 1766,
which I shared with the most enlightened and diligent astronomer of our age, Father Maximilianus Hell of
Vienna. This highly famous man compared these observations of mine with his own, and found from this
comparison that Copenhagen lies 17 minutes 27 seconds in time west of Vienna”.
34
Lomholt vol. I, 1942, pp. 511 & 530, vol IV, 1961, pp. 15-32; Thykier et al. vol. II, 1990, 254-257; Kragh
2005, pp. 93-100.
- 290 -
singled out in several recent works of leading French and British astronomers (See Section
II.2.4). In fact, going to Vardø would give Maximilianus Hell a central position in the whole
project, allowing him to provide the international community of astronomers with
observations that would be essential to the calculation of the solar parallax. Furthermore, his
choice of going to Vardø would not preclude Hell from his role as a theoretical astronomer; it
would only strengthen his position, in fact. The combination of having personally obtained an
important observation of the transit, and then drawing on that experience in the calculation of
the parallax, was likely to enhance the authoritative character of his work – and promote his
career.
As a networker, however, Father Hell would be precluded from wielding his habitual
influence by going to Vardø. This is illustrated by a letter from one of the colleagues he used
to offer advice in matters of astronomy, the Jesuit professor Franciscus Huberti (1715-1789)
in Herbipolis (Würzburg). At the time Hell was about to leave for Vardø, Huberti was
renewing his observatory and needed the Imperial Astronomer’s advice in this process.
However, Father Hell embarked upon his expedition without leaving any instructions to his
confrère. This situation is probably behind Huberti’s remark in a letter to the Jesuit
astronomer Franciscus Weiss in Tyrnavia, dated 10 December 1768:35
Father Hell has promised to send me some day an instruction for the correct
adjustment of the meridian line, but who will turn to a man who, as a citizen, is
dead (virum civiliter mortuum)?
As of December 1768, Hell was in Vardø, and it is probably this Huberti alludes to when
describing the court astronomer as a vir civiliter mortuus. From a continental-European
Jesuit’s point of view, Father Hell was perhaps temporarily “dead”. But he was far from idle.
The next section will describe how he planned and conducted his observations in Vardø
during 1768/69.
35
Huberti to Weiss, dated 10 December 1768 (printed in Vargha 1990, p. 72): “Pollicitus est R. Pater Hell, se
aliquando artificium construendae ad amussim lineae Meridianae traditurum: at quis recurret ad virum civiliter
mortuum?” The information that Huberti constructed his observatory in 1768 is given in Lalande 1792, p. xxxix:
“En 1768 on a bâti un observatoire à VURTZBOURG, […] sous la direction du P. Huberti” = “In 1768, an
observatory was built in Würzburg, […] under the direction of Father Huberti”.
- 291 -
II.3.2
FATHER HELL’S DETERMINATION OF THE COORDINATES OF HIS
OBSERVATORY AND OBSERVATION OF THE VENUS TRANSIT IN VARDØ
The organisers of Hell’s expedition offered him a generous pick of instruments to bring to
Vardø from Copenhagen’s Rundetårn (‘Round Tower’) observatory. Among these were an
astronomical clock made by Julien Leroy (1686-1751) in Paris, a ten-foot telescope of
Dollond’s making and a three-foot quadrant made by Johannes Ahl in Copenhagen.36 A piece
of particular symbolic value was a two-foot traveller’s quadrant that had originally been made
by Johann Tobias Mayer (usually referred to as Tobias Mayer, 1723-1762) in Göttingen. This
instrument now belonged to Mayer’s former student Carsten Niebuhr, who had used it during
his famous expedition to the Near East in the years 1761-67.37 Furthermore, Hell brought with
him a temperature-compensated pendulum clock made in Vienna by his observatory assistant
Antonius Pilgram as well as achromatic telescopes 8½ and 10½ feet long, also made in
Vienna.38 Essential to his time keeping was a six feet high gnomon used to determine the local
meridian line and the Sun’s transit through the meridian.39 All these instruments were used for
the determination of the longitude and latitude of Vardø as well as for the observation of the
Venus transit itself.
Shortly upon arrival in Vardø in October 1768, Hell started constructing his modest
observatory, as an annex to the house that he was offered during his stay. The construction
consisted of two small rooms, observatoriola (or “small observatories”), with hatches in the
roof and walls for observations of the sky. The two small observatories faced north and south
respectively. In the middle, between the northern and southern observatory, was a small
laboratory. Soldiers from the local garrison, Vardøhus Fortress, were hired to take care of the
construction process. By Christmas, the building was finished, and Hell unpacked his
instruments and started mounting these in early January.40 The rest of this section will
describe how Hell determined the longitude and latitude of his observatory, and how the
Venus transit observation was undertaken.
36
Hell 1770a1, pp. 5-6. Ahl’s name is misspelled “Aal” by Hell.
For Niebuhr’s expedition, see Section II.2.3 above. More on the quadrant below.
38
Hell 1770a1, pp. 6 & 71; Hell’s MSS “Observationes Astronomicæ et Cæteræ Jn Jtinere litterario Viennâ
Wardoëhusium usque factæ” (1768-69) and [no heading, starting with the words] “NB De Horologiis” (1769).
See also Thykier et al. 1990, vol. II, pp. 252-253.
39
Hell 1770a1, pp. 4-5.
40
The best source-based, contextualised study of Hell’s stay in Vardø is still Kragemo 1960 (in Norwegian; a
German translation was issued by the Tornedalica Foundation in 1997 [not seen]). See also Hansen & Aspaas
2005; Aspaas & Hansen 2007; Aspaas 2008c (in Norwegian) & 2008d; Voje Johansen 2009 (in Norwegian),
with references found in those works.
37
- 292 -
As explained in Section II.1.2 above, the determination of the exact coordinates of all
observational sites was of crucial importance to the Venus transit project. Maximilianus Hell
planned to determine the longitude of Vardø by various means. In addition to a solar eclipse
that was expected around midday on 4 June 1769, he intended to make use of occultations of
satellites of Jupiter; a lunar eclipse that was to take place 23 December 1768; occultations of
fixed stars by the Moon; and transits of the Moon through the meridian compared to the
positions of stars. Accordingly, he contacted Wargentin beforehand, asking him to provide
corresponding data sets from Sweden.41 In Vardø, however, all these attempts failed, partly
because of the high southern declination of Jupiter, partly because of overcast weather. The
only feasible data Hell obtained were those of the solar eclipse that took place the day after
the transit, as well as the observation of the transit itself.42 However, use of the Venus transit
data for the purpose of determining the longitude would only be of indirect value, as a
crosscheck after the solar parallax had been calculated. At the time Hell wrote his Venus
transit report from Vardø, this was far too early, since only European observations had
reached him by then.43 As for the solar eclipse, this was obviously followed closely not only
by Father Hell and other astronomers on Venus-transit expeditions across the world, but also
by staff at all the high standard observatories of Europe. For observing the eclipse, Father Hell
used the 8½ feet long telescope, and Sajnovics the 10½ feet. According to Hell’s report, the
two astronomers determined the end of the eclipse as identically as could be done, only a
single second differing between them.44
Having returned to Copenhagen in the autumn of 1769, Hell was able to determine the
longitude of Vardø by means of corresponding observations of the solar eclipse of June 1769
provided by Maskelyne in Greenwich, Messier in Paris, Christian Horrebow and assistants in
41
Hell to Wargentin, dated Copenhagen 30 June 1768 (CVH Stockholm): “Rogatum Te volui, ut hoc meum
propositum cum Collegis et Correspondentibus Tuis commune facias, quo observationes suas astronomicas
cumprimis ad longitudinem geographicam pertinentes satellitum [Jovis], Eclipsium ʘ et [Lunæ], occultationum
fixarum à [Luna], aut transituum [Lunæ] per meridianum comparatorum cum fixis instituere, et mecum
communicare dignentur” = “I would like to ask You to make known to your colleagues and correspondents this
proposal of mine: that they care to obtain astronomical observations, especially such that pertain to the
determination of the longitude – that is, the moons of Jupiter, eclipses of the Sun and Moon, occultations of fixed
stars by the Moon, or transits of the Moon through the meridian compared with positions of fixed stars – and that
they show me the kindness of sharing these observations with me”. It is likely that Hell asked colleagues at other
sites for similar observations, but further letters containing such requests have not been found.
42
Hell 1770a1, pp. 30-31.
43
Hell 1770a1, p. 31.
44
That is, within a margin of error of ±½ second (cf. Hell 1770a1, p. 31). Other observations of the same
moment made at identical sites by multiple observers varied up to ±5 seconds (cf. Hell 1770a1, pp. 33-42, espec.
p. 38).
- 293 -
Copenhagen, Wargentin and Ferrner in Stockholm, Father Christianus Mayer in St.
Petersburg, Father Pilgram and the amateur Sambach in Vienna and Father Aman in
Ingolstadt.45 In this way, he found a longitude of 3h 14m 41.8s East of the island Ferro, or 1h
55m 6s East of Paris, corresponding to 2h 4m 27s East of Greenwich.46 As Hell saw it, however,
this was only a preliminary result, for he was still waiting to check his figure on the basis of
Venus-transit reports from America (which in Hell’s parlance included the Pacific).
The site of Hell’s observatory is nowadays determined as 31º 6′ 27″, or 2h 4m 25.9s East of
Greenwich. This means Hell’s initial determination was only 1.1 seconds, or 170 meters
incorrect!47 It is important to note, however, that this remarkable accuracy resulted from a bit
of luck as well as excellent observational and calculating skills. With the data at hand, Hell
might as well have opted for, say, 2h 4m 24s or 2h 4m 29s. It would still have been a very good
determination by eighteenth-century standards.48 For the determination of the latitude, Hell
used a more unusual method, which merits some consideration.
There was a widespread notion in contemporaneous astronomy that the atmosphere in the
north was thicker and the refraction greater than in for example Paris, where the best tables of
refraction had been made.49 Consequently, Hell was puzzled how to test the accuracy of his
quadrants as well as the geographical position of his observatory. His choice was to use a
selection of pairs of stars culminating in the same zenith distance, one in the north and the
other in the south. In this way, any influence of a thicker atmosphere was eliminated:50
45
Hell 1770a1, pp. 33-45.
Hell 1770a1, p. 50 (mentioning only Ferro and Paris). I am indebted to Truls Lynne Hansen for figuring out
the Greenwich value.
47
I am indebted to Bjørn Geirr Harsson and Truls Lynne Hansen (pers.comm.) for this determination.
48
I rely on Truls Lynne Hansen (pers.comm.) for this assessment.
49
See for example Heinsius, “De Refractionibus in Oris Septentrionalibus” 1761, where the author begins his
discussion by stating that he finds it logical that the refraction be greater in the North than close to the Equator,
but concludes by affirming that this is not the case. Also Hell admits that he was convinced that the refraction
would be greater in Vardø than in Paris, and explains that his wish to examine the as-yet unexplored degree of
refraction at the 70th latitude was the main reason for him to spend the winter in Vardø (Hell 1770a1, p. 17):
“Quod maximi momenti dubium inter cetera hyemem Wardoëhusii exigendi motiva præcipuum erat omnino” =
“This doubt, of the utmost importance, was certainly the most important among the motives leading me to spend
the winter in Vardøhus”.
50
Hell 1770a1, pp. 7-29; here pp. 10-11: “In methodo enim ordinaria fixæ sumuntur quævis, sub aliis scilicet
altitudinibus ad austrum, aliis ad boream culminantes, in qua methodo necesse omnino est, ut refractio aeris
determinata, & præcise nota habeatur. Secus se habet in mea methodo: nam, cum in mea methodo fixæ
seligantur, quæ sub eadem altitudine tam ad austrum, quam ad boream culminant, effectus refractionis,
quiscunque is sit, idem omnino esse debet in fixa ad austrum culminante, qui habetur in fixa culminante ad
boream, atque adeo, quacunque Tabula refractionis utamur, idem omnino error Quadrantis, aut saltem paucis
secundis differens prodire debet”. See also Hell’s article “Methodus astronomica Sine usu Quadrantis, vel
Sectoris, aut alterius cujusvis instrumenti, in gradus Circuli divisi, item sine notitia refractionis, ope solius tubi
46
- 294 -
in the ordinary method, stars of no particular position are chosen – that is, some
stars culminating at various zenith distances in the south, others in the north.
That procedure requires that the refraction of the atmosphere is accurately
determined and known to the observer,
Hell explains. “But this is not so in my method”, where “the effect of the refraction, however
great or small that may be”, is ruled out. After a long series of observations, of which only an
extract is given in the Venus transit report, Hell concludes that the latitude of his observatory
in Vardø was 70º 22′ 36″ north.51
A more straightforward method of calculating the latitude was to observe the apparent
distance of the Sun’s upper limb from the horizon when it reached its highest point at noon.
This method yielded data of sufficient accuracy for the needs of ordinary navigation, but not
for the delicate calculations of the solar parallax, where each observatory had to be
determined as exactly as possible. The method presupposed, for example, that the refraction
of the site was exactly known. On his trip back and forth, Hell used this less exact method to
determine the latitude of 37 sites between Copenhagen in the South and Vardø in the North.
He estimated the degree of uncertainty involved in these measurements to be around ±15″, or
for some around ±30″.52 According to the astronomer Truls Lynne Hansen, who has studied
Hell’s descriptions of Niebuhr’s quadrant, 15 arc seconds in the latitude would equal only
0.05 mm on the circle of the quadrant during observation,53 a fact that makes it hard to believe
that Hell’s claim to an uncertainty of only ±15″ is a reliable figure. It may be added that for
surveys in central parts of Sweden around the mid-eighteenth century, an uncertainty of ±30″
instructi micrometro filari, singula secunda indicante, et in apto ad hunc usum fulcro mobili applicati,
elevationem Poli cujusvis loci, in continente siti, accuratissimam definire” 1774, espec. p. 5.
51
Hell 1770a1, pp. 17-29, espec. p. 27.
52
Hell 1770b, p. 622 (in Danish) = Hell’s MS “Latitudines Geographicæ Locorum Finmarchiæ, Nordlandiæ,
Norwegiæ et Sueciæ Observationibus à Maximiliano Hell et Societati Regiæ Scientiarum Hafniensi Oblatæ die
18 May 1770” (1770), fol. 5; Hell 1792, pp. 309-310.
53
Truls Lynne Hansen (pers.comm.). In Hell 1770b, pp. 621-622 = Hell’s MS “Latitudines Geographicæ …”
(1770), fol. 4, and in Hell 1790, pp. 308-309, the radius of the quadrant is stated to be two feet: “Den [i.e.
Qvadranten] er af to Fods Radius” = “Radius quadrantis duorum est pedum”. The same size is given in a letter
from Niebuhr to Franz Xaver von Zach in Gotha, dated Meldorf 9 July 1801 (originally published in Zach’s
Monatliche Correspondenz IV [1801], pp. 240ff; here quoted from Niebuhr 1968, vol. III, Anhang, p. 3): “Zu
Beobachtungen auf dem festen Lande hatte Mayer für mich einen Quadranten von 2 Fuß im Radio verfertigen
lassen” = “Mayer had made for me a quadrant of two-foot radius for observations on land”. In a more detailed
description in Hell’s MS “Observationes Astronomicæ et Cæteræ Jn Jtinere litterario Viennâ Wardoëhusium
usque factæ” (1768-69), p. [1], the radius of the quadrant is said to be one foot and two Viennese inches,
whereas its tube was 2 feet 2 inches: “Hic Quadrans in radio est I ped. II dig. Vien. defert tubum mobilem 2 ped.
2 dig.”. Probably, “I ped. II dig.” is a slip of the pen for “II ped. II dig.”. In that case, the exact radius of
Niebuhr’s quadrant was 2 feet 2 inches, or 26 inches.
- 295 -
was deemed acceptable, whereas Hellant in his surveys of Lapland argued that ±1′ must
suffice.54
It would have been interesting to learn whether Hell tested the two methods comprehensively
against each other in Vardø. However, neither his Venus transit report nor his subsequent
treatises on the solar parallax give any evidence of this.55 The question is whether he actually
did so. In order to answer this question, we need to look into the letters of Hell and Sajnovics,
the travel diary of Sajnovics and other surviving manuscripts from the Vardø expedition. (The
term “pole height” used below means geographical latitude.)
In a letter to his replacement at the Vienna University Observatory, the above-mentioned
Father Pilgram, dated 12 November 1768, Hell says that upon his arrival in Vardø 11
October, 56
my first wish was to acquire a preliminary knowledge of the latitude, but I had
as yet no suitable place at hand from which to conduct this work; I measured
from the entrance hall some altitudes of the Sun at noon, and have […] found
the pole height to be between 70º 19′ 30″ and 70º 20′. This result is only
preliminary, however, until I determine it accurately by means of observations
of the vertical stars.
In a letter to Chr. Horrebow, also dated 12 November 1768, he mentions the same result,
adding that it was the travellers’ quadrant of Niebuhr that had been used for this
measurement.57 In various other letters from Vardø, dated from November 1768 to January
54
Cf. Widmalm 1990, p. 79.
Admittedly, Father Hell mentions an initial result of 70º 20′ for the pole height in a more elaborate treatise on
his method of calculating the latitude, but gives no details as to whether he cross-checked this result with other
solar observations later in his stay in Vardø (Hell 1774, p. 31).
56
Hell to Pilgram, dated Vardø 12 November 1768 (quoted from Pinzger 1927, p. 10): “meine erste begirde war,
die Pollhöhe von Wardoëhus beyläufig zu wissen, ich hatte aber noch keinen bequemen orth zu dieser arbeith;
ich mass doch im Vorhause einige mittägige Sonnenhöhen, und habe […] die Pollhöhe gefunden zwischen 70º
19′ 30″ und 70º 20 minuten, sie ist aber nur beyläufig, bis ich selbe durch Vertikal-sterne genau bestimmen
werde […]”.
57
Hell to Chr. Horrebow, dated Vardø 12 November 1768 (quoted from Pinzger 1927, p. 32): “Alhie habe ich
auch vorläuffig und beym gleichen die Pohl höhe gemessen, allein theils aus mangels des orths zum observiren,
denn ich observirte nur im Vorhofe, wo der Quadrant auf dem nicht recht festliegenden bodenbrettern stunde,
theils weil die mittags Sonne schon sehr nieder stunde, nur 4 bis 5 grad hoch, mithin die Pariser Refraktion
Tabell in dieser höhe unrichtig, in solchen umständen die Pohl höhe nur beyläuffig zu wissen, so habe ich Selbe
durch 4 mittägige Sonnen höhen und eine des Fixstern Altair im Adler culmination gefunden zwischen 70º 19′
30″ und 70º 20′ beyläuffig […]” = “I have here [in Vardø] also measured [the pole height] preliminary and with
the same instrument [i.e., Niebuhr’s quadrant]. However, partly because of the lack of a proper place to observe
from – for I observed in the forecourt [sic], where the quadrant rested on the not entirely fixed wooden floor –
partly because the midday sun was already quite low, only four or five degrees high […], I have found it, by
55
- 296 -
1769, Hell speaks of a latitude of 70º 20′, but without explaining the methods used for this
determination.58
The diary of Sajnovics gives additional information on the first attempts to determine the
latitude of Vardø. In the entry on 14 October, it is said that:59
The quadrant of Niebuhr was mounted, since clouds full of snow came in
intervals and gave us reason to hope for a view to the Sun. The complement of
the altitude of the [upper] limb of the Sun was 78º 28′ 30″, giving a pole height
of 70º 26′, [which is only] an approximation, because clouds disturbed the
observation.
The entry on 16 October 1768 tells that “a wind from SSW melted the snow completely and
brought back the serenity in the sky. The complement of the altitude of the Sun’s upper limb
was 79º 9′ 0″”.60
Finally, on 18 October, Sajnovics says: “I have observed the altitude of the Sun, which gives a
pole height of 70º 20′”.61
Other entries in the travel diary demonstrate that further attempts to measure the latitude were
made as late as 25 October and 5 November, but then the subject is dropped and never
mentioned again in this text.62
means of four Sun heights at midday and one culmination of the star Altair in the Eagle, to be approximately
between 70º 19′ 30″ and 70º 20′”.
58
Hell to Gunnerus in Trondheim, dated Vardø 12 November 1768 (Pinzger 1927, p. 26); Hell to Mercier in
Copenhagen, dated Vardø 15 January 1769 (WUS Vienna, relevant part of letter not included in Pinzger); Hell to
Chr. Horrebow in Copenhagen, dated Vardø 15 January 1769 (ditto). Cf. Sajnovics to Splenyi in Tyrnavia, dated
Vardø 14 November 1768: “Jnsula Wardoë sub elevatione Poli 70. 20. circiter sita est” = “The Vardø Island is
situated at a pole height of approximately 70º 20′”.
59
Sajn.s diary, 14 October 1768: “erectus quadrans Nyburgianus, cum nivosæ nubes per intervalla Venientes
spem solis videndi fecerint. Observatum complementum alti: limbi ʘ superioris fuit 78. 28. 30. unde Elevatio
poli 70º. 26′. circiter ob nubes nempe intercurrentes Observationi”.
60
Sajn.s diary, 16 October 1768: “Ventus S.S.West. nives penitus solvit. et serenitatem cœlo revexit. Compl:
Alt: Lim[:] ʘ super. 79º. 9′. 0”.
61
Sajn.s diary, 18 October 1768: “accepi altitudinem ʘ. ex qua Elevatio poli. 70º. 20.”
62
Sajn.s diary, entries 25 October and 5 November 1768. Further accounts of solar observations in the diary
seem not to be concerned with the pole height at all. Thus, observations 19 and 20 November 1768 and 19 and
21 January 1769 are related to the length of the polar night; observations 10, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23 and 24 April 1769
are concerned with efforts to establish a meridian line for observations of the magnetic declination (a correct
meridian line was a prerequisite for this activity, which started 27 April, cf. Hansen & Aspaas 2005, p. 16); 27
May, 3 and 4 June 1769 concern the time keeping during the Venus transit and solar eclipse; 17 June 1769 on the
refraction of the atmosphere (see also footnote 65 below).
- 297 -
Hell’s manuscript ‘Astronomical and Other Observations made during the Scientific Journey
from Vienna to Vardø’ (the “astronomical notebook”) gives additional information.63 Here,
Hell records even more observations of the Sun than those that are found in Sajnovics’ diary,
and what is more, the observations are accompanied with calculations and sometimes even
theoretical deliberations. The conspicuous difference between the preliminary results of
November 1768 and the final conclusions in the printed report – from approximately 70º 20′
or even 70º 19′ 30″, to 70º 22′ 36″ – is explained by the error of the quadrant, which had not
yet been determined in the autumn.64 Thus, when Hell in his notebook on 16-18 October 1768
records observations giving pole heights ranging from 70º 20′ 26″ to 70º 21′ 12″, ending with
a mean value of 70º 20′ 25″ (sic), he has added in a slightly different ink, +1 30 error Quadr.,
and concluded that the pole height should be 70º 22′ 55″. Of course, 70º 20′ 25″ plus 1′ 30″
does not give 70º 22′ 55″, but 70º 21′ 55″. Neither figure is, however, too far from that of 70º
22′ 36″, which ultimately appeared in the Venus transit report. The difference between the
70º 20′ 25″ in the astronomical notebook of October 1768 and the approximate value of
70º 19′ 30″ or 70º 20′ in the letters of November and January suggests that Hell initially
believed his quadrant’s error to be about -30″, instead of +1′ 30″ (or even +2′ 30″). To judge
from the astronomical notebook, no further efforts to measure the pole height by means of the
sun were made, not even in late May or June, when the sun was available day and night and
the stars were in any case invisible.65
In conclusion, there is nothing in the sources to indicate that Hell bothered about the latitude
any more after he had determined it by means of observations of stars during the winter and
early spring of 1769. I have no good explanation as to why Hell apparently never undertook a
comprehensive, comparative study of the pole height yielded by observations of the Sun
versus that yielded by the stars.
63
Hell’s MS “Observationes Astronomicæ et Cæteræ Jn Jtinere litterario Viennâ Wardoëhusium usque factæ”
(1768-69).
64
Hell’s MS “Observationes Astronomicæ …” (1768-69): “factæ item Sunt quadrante Domini Nieburg, qui
examinandus est deinceps” = “[these observations] were also made with Mr Niebuhr’s quadrant, which needs to
be examined later”.
65
Further observations of solar heights recorded in the astronomical notebook are not concerned with the pole
height. Thus, solar observations recorded 19-21 November 1768 and 19-21 January 1769 contain deliberations
concerning effects of the refraction upon the length of the polar night; various observations from 24 January to
18 March 1769 are either implicitly or explicitly undertaken in order to determine refraction; observations are
conducted from 10 to 26 April 1769 in order to establish a correct meridian line for observations of magnetic
declination; observations from 29 April to 9 June 1769 are evidently made in order to test the running of the
clocks; and finally, observations in the night between 17 and 18 June 1769 have the additional aim of checking
the refraction (the Midnight Sun being very low above the sea level, this was a convenient crosscheck against the
results obtained from observations of stars made earlier in the year).
- 298 -
Incidentally, Hell’s final conclusion concerning the latitude of his observatory – 70º 22′ 36″ –
is today found to be somewhat more inaccurate than his determination of the longitude.
According to Bjørn Geirr Harsson at Statens Kartverk (‘Norwegian Mapping and Cadastre
Authority’), the astronomical latitude should be 70º 22′ 15.5″ N, that is, 20.5 seconds, or 632
meters further south than Hell’s figure. It is important to note, however, that this modern
value depends on a more accurate knowledge of the curvature of the Earth’s surface than that
which existed in the eighteenth century.66 An overall examination of Hell’s activities as a
surveyor during his expedition, with assessments of his results in the light of the history of
Nordic geodesy, is a desideratum.67
In any case, Maximilianus Hell felt that he had safely determined the latitude of his
observatory, when the third day of June 1769 approached. The running of the clocks had
already been tested for weeks, and the frequency of these tests was intensified in the last days
before the transit. Ideally, such tests involved observations of the Sun as it passed the
meridian in the South at noon and the meridian in the North at midnight. The transit was
going to take place when the Sun was in the North, meaning that the northern room of his
observatory (the observatoriolum septentrionale) would be used for this crucial observation.
Having checked the time keeping at twelve o’clock in the day, Hell had to move his
instruments over to the northern chamber in the afternoon of 3 June in order to be prepared for
the transit of Venus. By the next morning – 4 June – at least two of his telescopes must have
been moved back again, as these were used to observe the eclipse of the Sun, which took
place between 9:22 and 11:22 am, and would only be visible from the observatoriolum
australe.68
66
Bjørn Geirr Harsson (pers.comm.). The astronomical latitude, observed by Hell, is related to the plumb line at
the station, whereas the latitude obtained from a GPS receiver is related to the normal at the ellipsoid. “The angle
between the plumb line and the vertical of the ellipsoid is called the deflection of the vertical,” Harsson explains.
“In Vardø the geoid is tilting to eastnortheast, which means that the deflection of the vertical has a component in
direction north, even if the main component is in direction east. The north component of the deflection of the
vertical is computed to be 2.5 second of an arc at today’s post office in Vardø. So if 2.5″ is added to the GPSlatitude, the two latitudes can be compared. Hell’s latitude was 70º 22′ 36″ and the GPS-latitude is 70º 22′ 13″. If
we add the 2.5″ to the GPS-latitude we get 70º 22′ 15.5″. The difference of 20.5 seconds corresponds to a
latitude for Hell to be 632 meters north of today’s GPS position of the same place” (pers.comm.).
67
An investigation of the latitude for a single location (in Christiania, now Oslo) by Harsson in 2003 gave a
discrepancy of only nine arc seconds, or 270 meters between Hell’s determination and the modern value (Aspaas
and Voje Johansen 2004a, pp. 5-6). It would be futile, however, to conclude much from the examples of Oslo
and Vardø alone.
68
Cf. Hell 1770a1, p. 81.
- 299 -
How did Hell and his crew proceed to conduct the observation of the transit of Venus around
midnight 3-4 June? Of the four contacts of Venus with the limb of the Sun, Father Hell
deemed the first exterior contact impossible to observe with anything near the accuracy
required. Accordingly, he ordered his assistants Sajnovics and Borchgrevink to be on the
look-out for this event “so as to avoid, by this useless staring at the Sun, to weary and weaken
my eye, which I wanted to spare for the precise determination of that utterly important, first
interior contact”.69 As soon as they had exclaimed that they saw “a sort of black thing” (rem
quampiam nigram) about to enter the limb of the Sun, Hell placed his eye on the lens of his
telescope and estimated, on the basis of the proportion of the disc of Venus that had entered
so far, that the real exterior contact probably had taken place some 30 seconds earlier, or
9:14:47 pm according to the Viennese clock. Borchgrevink used the ten-foot Dollond,
Sajnovics the 10½-foot and Hell the 8½-foot telescope for this first observation.70
Before the interior contact at ingress (which took place some seventeen minutes later), Hell
and Borchgrevink switched places. Hell now took charge of the Dollond and left the 8½-foot
telescope for Borchgrevink, whereas Sajnovics continued to use the 10½-foot. The statement
concerning the interior contact is divided in two: first, Hell records the moment when the Sun
and Venus appeared to the three observers to be perfectly round, then, a moment taking place
a few seconds later, when “the shining thread of the Sun’s limb appears” (Apparet filum
lucidum limbi Solis). It is the latter of these moments that Hell considers to be the moment of
ingressus totalis Veneris (“total ingress of Venus”), although he concedes that some observers
define the former moment as that of ‘real’, interior contact. The latter moment was seen by
Hell at 9:32:48 pm according to the Viennese clock, and by Sajnovics three seconds earlier.
The amateur observer Borcgrevink in his turn saw it 35 seconds earlier than Sajnovics.71 Only
some seven minutes after total ingress had been observed, clouds started blocking their view
to the Sun, and the sky remained overcast nearly continuously until less than half an hour
before egress began. By the time the moments of egress were observed, the sky had again
become perfectly clear.72
69
Hell 1770a1, pp. 71-72, here p. 71: “Ego, cum contactus primus externus observatu sit impossibilis, ut Supra
ostendi, atque adeo nulli fere usui, ne oculum, quem pro summi momenti contactu primo interiore præcise
observando conservatum volui, inutili hac solis contemplatione fatigarem, & debiliorem redderem […]”.
70
Ibid.
71
Hell 1770a1, p. 73.
72
Hell 1770a1, pp. 74-75.
- 300 -
The interior contact of egress is described by Hell somewhat different from that of interior
contact of ingress. Here, Hell speaks of the gutta nigra (“black drop”), which starts forming
some eleven seconds before it “in an instant disappears, and so-to-speak bursts, and the limbs
of the Sun and Venus flow together as one”.73 Hell and Sajnovics had, according to Hell’s
account, determined this moment only a single second apart – at 3:26:17 and 3:26:18 am
respectively according to the Viennese clock – whereas Borchgrevink noted what he simply
called “the interior contact” (contactus interior) at 3:26:10 am.74
The moment of total egress was, according to the same account, encumbered with some
uncertainty. However, it was observed by Hell, Sajnovics and Borchgrevink within a range of
seven seconds, the moment expressly stated as egressus certus (“certain egress”) being
recorded by Sajnovics and Hell only a second apart – at 3:44:26 and 3:44:27 am, Viennese
clock.75
The above extract is based upon the printed report alone. Moreover, it does not render justice
to the intricate theoretical deliberations accompanying the data. The account of the
observation itself is found very near the end of the 82-page report, after an elaborate account
of instruments used, procedures followed in the testing of the clocks, definitions of “true” and
“optical” contacts, the black drop effect and so forth (See Table 5). This feature of Hell’s
report is – to the best of my knowledge – unparalleled in all other Venus-transit reports of the
year 1769; no other observer produced a first edition of his observation that included such
long and intricate theoretical discussions. But where theory and detail might be an advantage
in a report of such momentum, the time consumed in writing and publishing it was not. Father
Hell took his time when travelling back to Copenhagen, which he reached only on 17 October
1769. Here, during three sessions at the Royal Society – 24 November, 1 and 8 December
1769 – he presented his report on the Venus transit observation from Vardø.76 He also had an
audience with King Christian VII on 29 November, during which he obtained permission to
dedicate the printed version of the report to His Majesty.77 The printing process took its time,
73
Hell 1770a1, pp. 75-76, here p. 76: “Gutta hæc momentanee disparet, & veluti diffluit, limbusque Solis &
Veneris in unum confluunt […]”.
74
Ibid.
75
Ibid.
76
Sajnovics, travel diary 1768-70 (WUS Vienna), entries on 24 November, 1 and 8 December 1769; the protocol
of the Royal Danish Society of Sciences (KDVS Copenhagen), entries 24 November, 1 and 8 December 1769.
77
Sajnovics, travel diary 1768-70 (WUS Vienna), entry 29 November 1769: “Rogante Rdo P. Hellio ut Observationem transitus Veneris typis exscribendam Suo Regio Nomini dedicari pateretur reposuit. Wird mir lieb seÿn”
- 301 -
however, and not until 8 February 1770 could Father Hell present a copy of the work to its
dedicatee.78 Immediately afterwards, copies were distributed to learned societies and
individual savants abroad.79
During the eight months of secrecy in-between observation and publication, no foreign
astronomer had been allowed to inspect the data sets from Vardø. This caused suspicion and
even anger amongst some of his colleagues abroad. It is the implications of that atmosphere of
suspicion and anger that are the subject of the next sections of this chapter.
= “When Reverend Father Hell asked him if he would allow the Observatio Transitus Veneris that is going to be
printed, to be dedicated to His Royal Name, the King answered: ‘That will be a pleasure to me’”.
78
Sajnovics, travel diary 1768-1770 (WUS Vienna), entry 8 February 1770: “Circa 4 am ad Regiam itum. Circa
am
5 [5a MS] Augustissimus Rex portam aperuit. Rdus P. Hell Ei exemplar unum Observationis obtulit. acceperat
illum perquam benigne, modiceque inspexit. Tum Sermonem quasi ad ½ horam protraxit de aurora Boreali, de
decrescentia Maris, de Jdiomate Ungarorum [Ungarom MS] et Lapponum &ce: Verba faciens, imo etiam de
quadratura Circuli. Apparebat ex omnibus, eum de laboribus Hellianis valde bene instructum fuisse. atque
luculenter ostendit, Exspectationi Suæ, Ceterorumque abundanter esse Satisfactum” = “Around 4 o’clock we
went to the palace. At about 5 o’clock His Highness the King opened the door. Honourable Father Hell offered
him a copy of the Observatio. He accepted it very generously and inspected it for a while. Then he kept talking
for about half an hour, mentioning the Northern Light, the decrease of the sea level, the language of the
Hungarians and the Lapps, etc., and finally, the quadrature of the circle. It emerged from all this that the King
had been quite well informed concerning the works of Father Hell. He also demonstrated quite clearly that His
own as well as the others’ expectations had been amply fulfilled”.
79
Hielmstierne to J.A. Euler in St. Petersburg, dated 9 February 1770 (RAN St. Petersburg); Hielmstierne to
Wargentin in Stockholm, dated Copenhagen 10 February 1770 (CVH Stockholm). These examples corroborate a
claim made by Hell in the “De Parallaxi Solis…” 1772, p. 110, that his Venus-transit report was published in
Copenhagen 8 February and distributed by the post “to all academies” the next day: “Vera sunt […] ipsa die 8.
Haffniæ vulgatam, dieque sequente 9. Februarii typis Haffniæ editam dissertationem cum orbe Astronomico
illico communicandam ad omnes Academias per Tabellarios transmissam” (my italics).
- 302 -
TABLE 5 THE CONTENTS OF THE VARIOUS EDITIONS OF HELL’S OBSERVATIO
TRANSITUS VENERIS … WARDOËHUSII … FACTA.
1770a1 = 1st Latin edition (Copenhagen, 8 February 1770)
1770a2 = 2nd Latin edition, in Nova Acta Eruditorum, issues Jan-Feb-Mar 1770 (Leipzig)
1770a3 = Danish translation, in Skrifter Kiøb., vol. X (Copenhagen, summer/autumn 1770)
1770a4 = 3rd Latin edition, appendix to Eph.Astr. for the year 1771 (Vienna, autumn 1770) *
1793 = German translation in Beyträge, vol. III (Wrocław & Jelenia Góra, 1793)
* The same edition was also distributed as a separate booklet, presumably with identical pagination (Vienna,
Trattner [not seen]).
1770a1
1770a2
1770a3
1770a4
1793
Dedication to the King of Denmark
and Norway
[i-vi]
missing
missing
missing
missing
Editor’s preface
missing
1-2
missing
missing
missing
Hell’s preface “To The Astronomers” [1]-7
2-8
527-543
1-8
[173]-182
“Test of the Quadrant from Copenhagen”
7-15
9-21
543-551
9-18
183-200
“Errors of the Quadrant Defined by
Observations”
16-17
22-23
552-553
18-19
200-202
“On the Latitude, or Pole Height of
the Vardøhus Observatory”
17-29
23-37
553-565
19-33
202-218
“On the Longitude, or Difference of
Meridian of Vardøhus”
30-50
38-66
566-587
34-58
219-255
“On the Method of Observing the
Optic Contacts in the Transit of
Venus in front of the Sun’s Disc”
51-61
67-79
587-597
58-71
256-272
“Observations of 2nd, 3rd, and 4th June 61-69
Pertaining to the State of the Clock”
79-87
597-604
72-81
273-285
“Observation of the Transit of Venus 69-80
in front of the Disc of the Sun on 3rd
June”
87-100
604-616
81-94
285-304
“Observation of the Eclipse of the
Sun on 4th June, during Clear and
Quiet Weather”
101-102
617-618
95-96
304-306
81-82
- 303 -
II.3.3 THE PUBLICATION OF THE VARDØ REPORT, UNDULY LATE?
As already explained (Section II.1.2), most astronomical data sets are useless if they are not
compared with corresponding observations from other sites. This situation was true, to an
extreme degree, as far as the Venus transits were concerned. This was the last chance for
more than a century to provide data sets for the determination of that coveted measure, the
solar parallax. And in 1769, data sets from the High North of Europe were, along with
corresponding ones from the southern Pacific, more precious than observations from
anywhere else in the Old World. Sajnovics’ travel diary gives an idea of the suspense felt
when the important day arrived:80
3rd June, Saturday. This day was the cause and origin of our Expedition.
Although the sky had been totally overcast yesterday evening, around 3 o’clock
the clouds spread sufficiently to make the Sun distinctly visible, before the sky
again was covered by clouds. Around 4 o’clock, after the mass, these clouds
disappeared and the clearest of skies appeared, allowing the altitudes [of the
Sun] to be recorded. Bands of clouds, purely white and very similar to Northern
Lights, were drifting in various directions, by a gently breeze arriving from the
North at first, then from the West and South, until it around 11 o’clock [am]
turned to the East before returning to the South soon after, only to arrive from
the West at 1 o’clock [pm]. The culmination of the Sun in the meridian line was
recorded, and after lunch corresponding heights were observed. Around 3
80
Sajn.s diary, entry on 3 June 1769 (WUS Vienna): “Junius dies 3a. Sabbathum. Hæc fuit Causa et Origo
Expeditionis nostræ. // licet heri Vesperi Cælum totum obductum fuerit. ita tamen nubes dissipatæ sunt, ut hora
3a sol. distincte videretur. dein nubibus Cælum iterum obductum. circa 4 am post sacra dicta, nubes hæ
disparuerunt et serenissimum [scripsi; serenissinum MS] Cœlum apparuit. Unde altitudines acceptæ. Nubium
tractus albissimi et Luci boreali simillimi hinc [scripsi; hin MS] inde ferebantur, Ventulo primum Nord tum
West. ac Sud spirante, qui circa 11am versus in Ost brevi per Sud redivit, ita ut hora 1 a a Vest spiraret. Culminatio
solis in linea meridiana obtenta est. post prandium Correspondentes acceptæ. sub quarum finem nempe hora 3 a
Cœlum totum Obductum Nubeculis candidis et dissociatis[.] horizon Boreus et Australis erant sat mundi adhuc.
Ventulus spirat à S. West. paulo post ex Sud Vest venere nubes copiosæ ita, ut studiosus Burgreving non potuerit
exerceri, in sole Observando usque ad horam 6. tum interdum emicuit sol et observare instructus est. Eædem
nubes continuarunt usque ad 8[.] post 9am horam 3 tubos in solem direximus qui per intervalla e nubibus emicuit.
denique tali loco sole existente, exterior et interior contactus observatus est, DEO singulariter favente. Mercator.
tormenta sua Novem explosit, et Vexillum pro signo letitiæ appendit [scripsi; eppendit MS], Exemplum ex parte
secutus Comendans Vexillum in fortalitio exponi fecit. Admissi ad observatoria Hospites, ijsque Venus in ʘ
ostensa sed nec 5 minutis eam videri, cum atris nubibus sol obtectus est. nec ulla positio per spatium 6. horarum
(incredibile! sed tamen verum!) accipi poterat. de exitu Videndo omnes eramus solliciti, sed nemo spem habebat
ob nubes atras et Cælo quasi affixas in eo loco ubi [è Sole] egredi debuisset. circa 3 am horam matutinam Ventus
Sud Ost potens incepit, et nubem quæ solem texerat deturbavit de statione, unde. Contactus interior et exterior ♀
benè observata sunt. iterum Mercator tormentula sua tria sexies explosit. solatium imane erat apud Vardœianos
omnes. Nos Te DEum Laudamus sincerissimo affectu deprompsimus. et tantisper quieti indulsimus. de Barometro et Acu magnetica nec tempus nec animus cogitandi fuit. // 4. Dom: III post Pentecostis. Dictis de SSS.
Trinitate sacris[.] Correspondentes acceptæ Cælo toto Serenissimo, modico nord spirante. Sub quibus. hora 10.
9'. tempore horologij Haffniensis [scripsi; Haffiniensis MS] animadversum est Ecclipsim solis inchoari. Hanc
Observavit R. P. Hell. finem ego etiam. Tum meridies acceptus. post prandium Correspondentes altitudines ʘ.
Dum ultimam altitudinem [scripsi; altitudo MS] adscribo, ecce totus aer plenissimus densæ nebulæ [scripsi;
nebula MS], et roris vel pluviolæ instar in terram deciduæ. quæ dein toto Cœlo æquabiliter diffusa. Caliginem
Obduxit nescio quamdiu duraturam. male si heri sic fuisset!”
- 304 -
o’clock, as these operations came to a close, the sky was totally covered by
small, white clouds which were not connected with each other. The horizon in
the North and South, however, was still rather clear. A gentle breeze blew from
the South-West. Shortly afterwards there arrived such a multitude of clouds
from the South-West that the student Borchgrevink could not be set to work to
observe the Sun until 6 o’clock, when the Sun again broke through the clouds
from time to time and he received his instructions for observing. The same
clouds continued until 8 o’clock. After 9 o’clock [pm], we directed the three
telescopes to the Sun, which broke through the clouds every now and then. And
finally, when the Sun stayed in such a place, the exterior and interior contacts
[of ingress] were observed, thanks to the singular grace of God. The merchant
exploded his gun nine times, and raised the flag as a sign of joy. The
commander followed his example, and made sure the flag at the fortress was
raised as well. Guests were allowed into the chambers of the observatory, and
Venus in the Sun shown to them. But for no more than five minutes was she
visible, until the Sun again was covered in black clouds, and no position of
Venus – how incredible! but nonetheless true! – could be recorded over the
course of six hours. We were all anxious to observe the egress, but no one hoped
for this because of black clouds which were glued to the sky, so to speak, in that
region where [the planet] was supposed to leave the Sun. Around 3 o’clock in
the morning a strong wind from the South-East began, and the cloud which
covered the Sun was driven away from its position. Thus, the interior and
exterior contacts of Venus were well recorded. Again the merchant fired his
gun, this time three times six. A great sense of satisfaction spread among all the
inhabitants of Vardø. We burst into a Te Deum laudamus with the sincerest of
sentiments, and allowed ourselves some rest in the meantime; there was neither
time nor the mood to think of the barometer or the magnetic needle.
4th [June], Sunday, the 3rd after Pentecost.
After mass for the Holy Trinity, the corresponding altitudes were recorded in the
clearest of skies, with some wind from the North. During these operations, at
10:09 [am] according to the Copenhagen clock, the eclipse of the Sun was noted
to begin. Honourable Father Hell observed this moment; and I too observed the
end. Then the meridian was recorded, and after lunch the corresponding
altitudes of the Sun. As I take down the last of these altitudes, suddenly the
entire sky is completely filled by the thickest of fog, falling down to the ground
like dew or drizzle, covering everything in a darkness that is likely to last for a
very long time. How bad if it had been like this yesterday!
As is regularly the case with Sajnovics’ diary, his account makes no attempt to give the details
of the observations themselves. Thus, neither the moments of contact of Venus with the limb
of the Sun, nor the moments of beginning and end of the eclipse, are stated with anything near
the degree of exactitude required. Among the surviving manuscripts, these details can only be
found in Hell’s ‘astronomical notebook’. This crucial set of data was, however, apparently
never shared with anyone until the formal report was presented to the Royal Society of
Copenhagen. This caution on the part of Hell even included his employer. Thus, when on 5
June 1769 an express letter was sent from Vardø to Thott in Copenhagen, the leader of the
- 305 -
expedition revealed nothing except the fact that his observations of both the Venus transit and
the solar eclipse had been successful.81 Sajnovics, for his part, wrote a similar letter to his
Jesuit friends in Hungary, where the crucial observations are described thus:82
From 27th May to 3rd June we could not see the Sun because of perpetual clouds,
and on the last-mentioned day, after we had recorded its corresponding heights,
it disappeared in clouds again. Around 9 o’clock in the evening we – myself,
Honourable Father Hell, and the student from Trondheim [i.e., Borchgrevink] –
stood at our telescopes, our moods fluctuating between hope and fear as we
waited in suspense to see whether it would be possible to observe Venus
entering the Sun, if it should happen to dive out from the clouds for a little
while. Soon afterwards an opening in the clouds emerged, and we could see the
Sun as if through a window, and both contacts of Venus in ingress were
elegantly observed. But not more than five minutes passed by, before the Sun
again was enveloped in thick clouds and no longer came forth in its entirety.
Dark clouds stubbornly accompanied the Sun for altogether five hours; and we
had lost all hope of observing the egress. Our hosts stood there with us, sad,
their faces in mourning, and expressing by means of utter silence their sorrow
and sympathy. How we ourselves felt, is easier to guess than to describe. Our
only hope was that God, if he should wish to do so, would come to our aid with
some miracle. In the meanwhile, as the time when Venus was supposed to leave
the Sun drew closer, the rays of the Sun suddenly began dissolving the
extremely thick cloud which stood in their way, finally dispelling it altogether.
And behold! The Sun came forth in full splendour, and both contacts of Venus
during egress were recorded exactly; with how much joy, with how many
thanksgivings to Divine Clemency, I am incapable of expressing. Our hosts, to
whom the word ‘miracle’ is an uncommon, perhaps even ridiculous concept,
nonetheless agreed fully that the way in which the appearance of the sky had
changed – so neatly and congruously – could not be due to any human or natural
cause, but must be ascribed to the utterly exceptional and incredible favour of
81
Hell to Thott in Copenhagen, dated Vardø 5 June 1769 (Pinzger 1927, pp. 102-103).
Sajnovics to Splenyi in Tyrnavia, dated Vardø 6 June 1769 (MagAkad): “A die 27a Maji usque ad 3. Junij
solem non vidimus ob perpetuas nubes, hac die postquam correspondentes ejusdem altitudines accepimus, iterum
nubes ingressus disparuit. Circa 9am vespertinam stabamus ad tubos ego, R. P. Hell et studiosus Nidrosiensis
spem inter et metum præstolantes, si forte paululùm emergente Sole ingredientem Venerem observare liceret.
Paulo post apertura in nubibus facta, et Solem quasi per fenestram conspeximus, et utrumque contactum
ingredientis veneris eleganter vidimus. Nondum 5. minuta effluxerant, Cum iterum densis nubibus involutus sol
non amplius integer prodiit, euntem comitabantur atræ nubes per horas omnino 5. pertinaciter; de egressu
videndo plane fuit conclamatum. Stabant hospites nostri juxta nobiscum tristes, et mæsto obtutu, altoque Silentio
dolorem et Commiserationem loquebantur. Nobis quid animi fuerit? facilius est Conjectare, quàm scribere. Spes
unica in Deo, et quidem si voluerit, miraculose succursuro. Jnterim tempus imminebat, quo Venerem egredi
oporteret, cum Radii solis oppositam sibi densissimam nubem dissolvere sensim et tandem plene disjicere
Cæperunt. Apparuit luce plena sol, et uterque Veneris exeuntis contactus adamussim observatus est, quanto cum
gaudio? quantis divinæ Clementiæ laudibus, non possum dicere. Hospites nostri, quibus miraculi nomen
inusitatum, et fortasse ridiculum est, uno tamen ore fatebantur non humanis aut naturalibus Causis, sed singulari
prorsus, et incredibili Numinis favori esse referendum, quod hæc Coeli facies ita aptè, atque congruè mutabatur.
Ego miraculi magnitudinem, dum vixero, gratus venerabor. Jbat dein per sudissimam Coeli Regionem sol;
accuratissimè ecclypsis ejus observata est idem in linea meridiana acceptus. Post prandium mundissimo Coelo
correspondentes altitudines iterum acceptæ, quarum ultimam dum adscribo, eodem momento turbo e
Septemtrione oritur, teterrimis nubibus Cælum, terras, et maria involvens, neque solem ab illo tempore videre
licuit, licèt jam dies 6ta Junij agatur.”
82
- 306 -
the Supreme Being. I for my part will cherish the magnitude of this miracle for
as long as I live. The Sun then wandered through a very clear part of the sky,
and its eclipse was observed most accurately and its passage through the
meridian recorded. After lunch its corresponding heights were again recorded in
the clearest of skies, but just as I was busy taking down the very last of these
observations, in the same moment a strong wind rose from the North,
enveloping the sky, earth, and sea in the darkest of clouds. From that moment
onwards, the Sun has not been possible to observe, although it is by now the
sixth day of June.
As time passed by, the secretive descriptions became more and more sophisticated. Father
Hell’s letter to Wargentin, dated Copenhagen 7 November 1769, is a good example:83
I have received Your highly friendly letter, eminent fellow, in which You
congratulate me with my successful return from Lapland. I thank You sincerely
both for Your friendly affections and especially for the astronomical news and
that set of accurate observations of Yours. I am very sorry to learn that Venus
has been so unfair in showing herself to all the other observers by the Arctic; it
is like a miracle, how she showed herself graciously to me, who very nearly had
given up all hope, but in doing so, she offered herself to be seen in such a
parsimonious, and almost feminine manner, that apart from all the contacts –
that is, her four kisses with the Sun, which she displayed with an uncovered face
– she hid herself away with her Apollo behind a thick cloud for almost the entire
duration of their rendezvous, as if being shy. I did not mind the clouds much,
however, for after the observation of the first interior contact, which took place
while the upper limb of the Sun was 6 degrees and 33 arc minutes high, the Sun
dropped down closer and closer to the horizon, so that, during its passage
through the northern meridian it was barely three degrees above the horizon.
Because of the vapours of the horizon, which in this place [Vardø] are
extremely dense and fluctuating so close to the horizon, it would in any case
have been impossible to determine the position of Venus accurately. The
interior contact of egress took place when the Sun was 10º 4′, and the exterior
contact when it was 11º 13′ high, and they were observed by me so precisely,
and in such clear and quiet atmospheric conditions, that I barely dare to doubt
for more than a single second. After egress the sky remained totally clear,
83
Hell to Wargentin in Stockholm, dated Copenhagen 7 November 1769 (CVH): “Redditæ mihi sunt peramicæ
Tuæ litteræ Vir Celeberrime; quibus reditum mihi è Lapponia gratularis felicissimum. gratias habeo maximas
tum pro amico hoc affectu Tuo, tum cumprimis pro communicatis novis Astronomicis, Tuisque observationibus
accuratissimis; Plurimum doleo, Venerem Cæteris omnibus ad Arctos observatoribus se adeo iniquam
exhibuisse; miraculo simile est, quod se mihi propemodum desperanti, propitiam exhibuerit, adeo tamen avarè,
et prope fœmineo modo, se conspiciendam præbuit, ut præter Contactus omnes, hoc est, oscula quaterna Soli
vultu sereno exhibita, toto fere tempore congressus, veluti pudibunda cum Apolline suo densam intra nubem se
se condiderit; Nec multum tamen indignabar nubibus; nam cum post contactum primum interiorem Limbo solis
superiore 6 grad. et 33′. alto, observatum, sol magis et magis ad horizontem inclinaret adeo, ut tempore transitus
per Meridianum boreum vix tribus supra horizontem emineret gradibus, ob vapores horizontis hic loci in tanta
horizontis vicinitate admodum spissos, et agitatos, nulla certa positio Veneris obtineri potuisset; Contactus
interior in egressu limbo solis alto 10º. 4′. et in contactu exteriore gradibus 11 et 13 m. Cœlo serenissimo, et
quieto adeo præcise à me observatus est, ut vix de uno secundo dubitare audeam; Post egressum Veneris cœlum
mansit Sudissimum sine ulla nube ad horam usque mediam quartam pomeridianam diei 4 Junij; Unde et
correspondentes, et Eclipsim solis, et solem in linea mea Meridiana sex pedes alta, accuratis observationibus
obtinui”.
- 307 -
without a single cloud until 3:30 pm on 4 June, allowing me to accurately
observe both the corresponding heights and the solar eclipse, and the Sun on my
six feet high meridian line.
Let those examples suffice to illustrate the flourishing, but artfully covert wording used by
Hell and Sajnovics when they described their observations prior to February 1770. A question
that needs to be addressed is whether the publication was really unduly late. And if so, was
Father Hell in any way personally to blame for the problems that he incurred? In order to
assess this problem, it is necessary to employ a comparative perspective, both with regard to
the year 1761 vis-à-vis 1769, and the conduct of the Royal Society of Copenhagen vis-à-vis
various national scientific bodies.
As of 1761, Maximilianus Hell was a newcomer on the international arena. He had only
recently begun expanding his network of correspondents outside the Jesuit circles of the
Habsburg lands. In doing so, he followed the work instruction that he had received when
being appointed Imperial and Royal Astronomer (See Section I.2.2). As a corresponding
member of the Académie Royale des Sciences of Paris (appointed December 1758), he shared
theories and observations with several colleagues in that stronghold of theoretical astronomy
(Section II.1.3). Not surprisingly, he sent the details of his Venus transit observation to Paris
by letter less than a week after the event in 1761.84
This way of sharing ideas and data sets was in harmony with the ideals of the Res publica
litteraria. It also fitted well to the self-esteem of the astronomers of Paris, who considered
themselves the natural coordinators of international programs such as the transits of Venus.
In the run-up to 1769, Jérôme de Lalande emerged as the leading figure in the Venus transit
enterprise.85 As the elderly Delisle retreated, Lalande was issuing memoirs, offering personal
advice and placing orders at the instruments makers’ on behalf of academies and individuals
in various countries. It is illustrative how he advised the Imperial Academy in St. Petersburg
on how to proceed, and offered to send one of his students to preside over the observations at
84
See Aspaas 2010, pp. 133-137 (with a facsimile of Hell’s letter to Lalande, dated Vienna 12 June 1761 on pp.
136-137). The observations of Hell were soon shared amongst the astronomers of Paris, who in turn
communicated them with colleagues across Europe long before they had been printed (see for example the letter
from Lacaille to Tobias Mayer in Göttingen, dated Paris 28 June 1761, published in Forbes & Gapaillard 1996,
p. 538).
85
See for example Pecker 1998; Dumont 2007, pp. 36-43.
- 308 -
the official observatory of that academy. Lalande also kept an assiduous correspondence with
fellow astronomers in Sweden and England in this period.
Not surprisingly, Lalande received news from all over the world in the weeks and months
after 3 June 1769. Thus, thanks to his close contacts with astronomers on the other side of the
Channel, Lalande received all British observations and summarised them in the Journal des
Sçavans long before they were printed in the Philosophical Transactions.86 Similarly, the
Imperial Russian Academy extracted the Venus-transit observations from the expedition
diaries of its observers, printed them immediately, and sent them to Lalande. And by mutual
agreement, its secretary – Johann Albrecht (Jean Albert) Euler – received news of French and
British observations from Lalande in return.87 Furthermore, Wargentin in Stockholm
summarised all Swedish (including Finnish) observations in letters to Lalande soon after the
transit had taken place.88
No comparable agreement existed between Lalande and the Royal Society of Sciences in
Copenhagen – quite the contrary, in fact. Hell’s refusal to share his observations with anyone
else, as explained in his letter to Wargentin quoted above, evidently included the
academicians of Paris. Despite Hell’s status as a corresponding member of the Académie
Royale des Sciences, with none other than Lalande as his personal contact, no details
whatsoever were revealed to Lalande or his confrères until a copy of Hell’s Observatio
Transitus Veneris ... Wardoëhusii … facta finally reached Paris 4 March 1770, exactly nine
months after the transit had taken place.89 By that time, Lalande had received reports from all
over Europe, and even from Hudson’s Bay in present-day Canada. The only crucial
observations he lacked were a couple of Siberian observations by Lowitz and Islen’ev
(published in French in May/June 1770),90 the observations of Chappe and his companions in
86
See Journal des Sçavans, Septembre 1769, pp. 644-645; Décembre 1769, pp 835-836; Avril 1770, pp. 227228 & Décembre 1771, pp. 825-826 (the last being a ‘letter to the editors’ dated 13 September 1771, in which he
explains that he had received the Tahiti observations of Cook’s team two days earlier). For a recent analysis of
Lalande’s contacts with British astronomers, see Fauque 2010.
87
J.A. Euler to Lalande in Paris, dated St. Petersburg 14 / 26 May 1769 & 8 / 19 September 1769 (RAN St.
Petersburg); Lalande to J.A. Euler in St. Petersburg, dated Bourg-en-Breste 26 July 1769 & Paris 12 January
1770 (RAN St. Petersburg).
88
Wargentin is known to have sent letters to Lalande in Paris, dated 9 June & 11 July 1769 (see the list of
outgoing correspondence in Nordenmark 1939, pp. 399-424, here p. 406). It is probably the contents of these
letters that appeared in Lalande’s “Lettre sur le passage de Vénus; adressée à Messieurs les Auteurs du Journal
des Sçavans”, published September 1769, p. 645.
89
According to Hell, De Parallaxi Solis ex Observationibus Transitus Veneris A. 1769 1772, p. 92.
90
On 19 June 1770, J. A. Euler sent to Hielmstierne (secretary of the Royal Society of Sciences in Copenhagen)
the two reports, “qui viennent d’être publié tout nouvellement” = “which were published quite recently” (KDVS
- 309 -
Baja California in present-day Mexico (reached Paris December 1770),91 and those of Captain
Cook’s crew in Tahiti, in what is now French Polynesia (reached Paris September 1771).92
For all these cases, there were good excuses for the delay: Lowitz continued his expedition in
Siberia for several years until he was actually killed by rioting local inhabitants,93 and it took
a while before the package containing his manuscripts arrived in St. Petersburg; Islen’ev’s site
of observation had been Iakutsk, almost 8,500 kilometres East of the capital, and even he
continued his expedition for a long while before returning to St. Petersburg; Chappe, along
with nearly all his travel companions, had perished from a plague while still in America; and
James Cook and his team had observed the transit literally from the other side of the planet
and still had some explorative tasks ahead of them before they returned home. The
professional astronomer of Cook’s crew, Charles Green, even lost his life in Asia.
In the web of swift and open collaboration characterising the Venus transit projects of the
eighteenth century, Denmark-Norway had been – or had let itself be – left in a backwater in
1761. Its non-communicative mode of behaviour continued in 1769, and it is reasonably clear
that neither Hell nor the organisers in Copenhagen asked for Lalande’s advice in the planning
of the Vardø expedition. The Venus transit report from Vardø did indeed arrive quite late, it
was unusually – and perhaps unnecessarily – long and detailed, and both its lateness and its
wealth of detail left it open to attack.
II.3.3.1
CONTEMPORANEOUS REACTIONS TO THE LATE ARRIVAL OF
HELL’S REPORT
Over the following few pages, we shall have a look at the immediate reactions to Hell’s report
among peers in Sweden, Russia, Germany and France. Four names will be used as examples –
Anders Planman in Åbo (Turku), Anders Johan Lexell in St. Petersburg, Abraham Gotthelf
Kästner in Göttingen and Lalande in Paris. Besides being astronomers of an international
Copenhagen). As of 18 March 1770, Lalande still had not received any news concerning the observations of
Lowitz and Islen’ev (letter to J.A. Euler, dated Paris 18 March 1770 [RAN St. Petersburg]). On 16 April, Lexell
informed Wargentin that the manuscript of Lowits had just arrived and was about to be printed (letter to
Wargentin in Stockholm, dated 16 April 1770 [CVH Stockholm]).
91
Cassini IV, “Avant-Propos” in his edition of Chappe, Voyage en Californie, Paris 1772, no page.
92
Lalande, “Lettre sur le passage de Vénus …”, in Journal des Sçavans for December 1771, pp. 825-826.
Observations made at Jesuit observatories in China had the potential of being valuable as well. Indeed, the
observations of the Jesuit Fathers Dollas and Dollières in Beijing are commented on by Lalande in a paper
originally read in 1771 at the Académie Royale des Sciences, but he does not state when the letter containing
their observations reached him, cf. Lalande “Mémoire sur la parallaxe du soleil, Déduite des Observations faites
dans la mer du Sud, dans le royaume d’Astracan, & à la Chine” 1774, pp. 789-791.
93
See for example the “Précis de la vie de M. Lowitz” in Bernoulli 1779b, pp. 41-50.
- 310 -
reputation, they had another thing in common: as of the spring of 1770, when they received
the report from Vardø, they had never met Father Hell in person.
Anders (Andreas, Andrew, André) Planman (in German often referred to as Planmann, 17241803) received his education in natural sciences in Åbo and Uppsala. As a docent of
astronomy at Uppsala University, he was sent to Cajaneborg in 1761 on behalf of the Royal
Swedish Academy of Sciences (see Section II.2.1). A couple of years later, he was appointed
professor of physics at the university in Åbo (Turku) in present-day Finland, a position he
kept for the rest of his life. From his base in Åbo, he had presented a series of calculations of
the solar parallax on the basis of that transit of Venus, arguing for a solar parallax of about 8.3
arc seconds (Section II.1.2). In 1769, Planman was again dispatched to Cajaneborg, where his
observation was partly successful, in so far as he did see both the external and internal contact
during ingress, but only the external contact during egress because of clouds. His data sets
were reported by letter to Wargentin in Stockholm, who distributed them promptly to
colleagues abroad. Like any other astronomer well versed in the noble art of calculating,
Planman was eager to see the observations of his peers in order to recalculate to solar parallax
from a completely new set of data. In late February 1770, Planman had not yet received the
observation of Maximilianus Hell in Vardø. In a letter to Wargentin, he states that:94
I thank my Mister [Wargentin] humbly for the observations of Venus that he has
deigned to share with me, and will shortly embark upon the calculation of the
solar parallax. I find Father Hell highly puzzling, since he has not yet published
his observations: such a way of behaving appears rather suspicious to me.
At that moment, Hell’s report had in fact just been released, and Planman’s curiosity was soon
satisfied. Seeing that the observations from Vardø did not match perfectly with any other
observations, Planman “free[d] him from all suspicions about the veracity of his
observation”.95 It might be added, however, that the Åbo professor was not only critical of the
lateness of Hell’s report. Also the swift and unpolished manner in which the Russian
observations were published had its disadvantages, mainly because they contained only the
moments of contact of the transit along with the raw material for the latitude and longitude of
94
Planman to Wargentin in Stockholm, dated Åbo 23 February 1770 (CVH): “För den del, min Herre behagat
lemna mig af observationerna öfver Venus, tackar jag ödmiukel. och skall jag innan kort gripa an sol-parallaxens
uträkningar. Jag undrar högeligen på Pater Hell, som icke ännu giort sina observationer bekanta: ett sådant
förhållande förekommer mig nog misstänkt”.
95
Planman to Wargentin in Stockholm, dated Åbo 22 June 1770 (CVH): “jag […] befriar honom från alla
misstankar om observationens rigtighet”.
- 311 -
each site, without any calculations or reductions to local mean time. 96 As he explained in a
dissertation presented at the Åbo University on 26 May 1770, his own way of publishing the
data sets – by an open letter first, then in brief articles in the proceedings of the Royal
Academy of Sciences in Stockholm and finally in a more elaborate dissertation – was superior
to both the Jesuit Father of Vardø and the Imperial Academy in St. Petersburg:97
In this way, it will become evident what elements of the observation are certain
and settled and what are dubious. For, those who publish their data stripped of
the circumstances in which they were obtained, can hardly be considered to
serve the world of learning better than those who delay sharing their
observations until they have had the occasion to compare them with the
observations of others. Whereas the latter can hardly avoid being stigmatised by
suspicion that they may have wished to publish observations that were either
made up or altered in order to fit to the observations of others, the former leave
the reader in suspense as to whether or not the data sets have been obtained
under appropriate conditions. Both parties are all the more to blame when
considering how crucial it is, in the comparison of observations involved in the
investigation of the solar parallax, to apply observations that are trustworthy in
all respects.
Although no names are mentioned, the identity of the “two parties” would be recognisable for
all astronomers. A university dissertation was not necessarily shared with many outside the
circle that witnessed the ceremony, but from Planman’s correspondence with Wargentin, it is
evident that he expected his piece to be communicated to Maximilianus Hell: “it would hurt
me, if he [i.e., Father Hell] should find himself offended by my disputation; however, my
unawareness of what came to pass [in Vardø] will serve as my excuse”, he wrote in a letter
shortly after the dissertation.98
The reaction of Planman, then, can be summed up as rather implicit and ambiguous. He found
Father Hell’s behaviour suspicious at first, but since the data sets from Vardø turned out not to
match his own, the Jesuit could hardly be accused of having forged them on the basis of the
Cajaneburg observations. There was also a discrepancy between the observers in Vardø.
96
Planman to Wargentin in Stockholm, dated Åbo 17 November 1770 (CVH).
Planman / Widqvist, Expositio observationum Transitus Veneris per Solem, Cajaneburgi A:o 1769, D. 3 Junii
factarum … [1770], p. [2]: “quo sic patescat, quid in observationibus certum & exasciatum, quidque dubium sit.
Quippe vix melius orbi erudito consulere putandi sunt, qui nude, absque adjectis circumstantiis, momenta sua
exhibent; quam qui observationum suarum divulgationem procrastinant, usquedum eas cum aliorum
observationibus conferre licuerit. Ut enim hi suspicionis notam haud effugiunt, observationes, aut prorsus fictas,
aut ad aliorum observationes conformatas, publici juris facere voluisse; ita illi in suspenso relinquunt, num rite se
habeant momenta capta. Utrinque certe eo gravius peccatur, quo majoris momenti est, in comparatione,
parallaxeos Solis investigandæ gratia instituenda, adhibere observationes per omnia comprobatas.”
98
Planman to Wargentin in Stockholm, dated Åbo 22 June 1770 (CVH): “det skulle göra mig ondt, om han
funne sig genom min disputation læderad; Men min okunnighet om rätta förlopet blir min ursägt”.
97
- 312 -
Although the observations of Sajnovics and Hell were almost identical, the moments recorded
by Borchgrevink diverged by several seconds from the two Jesuits. Planman of course noticed
this fact, and noted to Wargentin that “besides, the observations of Mister Borgrewing match
my own accurately, if a solar parallax of 8.3 arc seconds is supposed. That satisfies me.”99
Anders Johan (Andreas Joannes, André Jean) Lexell (1740-1784) was born and raised in
Åbo, where he attended university and was noticed for his brilliance in mathematics. No
positions were vacant in Swedish universities, however, and it may be that he had higher
ambitions as well. Be that as it may, in 1768, he sent two treatises of mathematics to the
Imperial Academy in St. Petersburg. Leonard Euler examined them and made sure that Lexell
obtained a position as his adjunctus (assistant) at the Academy. One of Lexell’s first tasks was
to observe the transit of Venus from the academy building. He did so along with the secretary
of the academy J. A. Euler, the Jesuit Mayer and his assistant Stahl SJ. 100 Having gained
access to the observations from St. Petersburg, Planman commented in a letter to J. A. Euler
that the observations of Lexell matched his own best, under the precondition that the solar
parallax was 8.3 arc seconds.101
Unlike Planman, however, Lexell was not convinced of the accuracy of his own observation –
or of a solar parallax of 8.3 arc seconds for that matter. He was soon entrusted the task of
calculating the solar parallax on the basis of the observations of 1769. In this process, Lexell
declined all temptation to accord the St. Petersburg observations any special reliability. Quite
the contrary, in a letter to Planman dated 25 June 1770, Lexell said that:102
99
Ibid.: “dessutom instämma Hr Borgrewings observationer accurat med mina, posita Parallaxi ʘ = 8″,3: och
dermed är jag till freds.”
100
Stahl and Lexell used comparatively small telescopes, while the two largest and best were used by Euler and
Mayer (cf. Mayer 1769a).
101
Planman to Jean Albert Euler in St. Petersburg, dated Åbo 26 September 1769 (copy in Planman’s
handwriting, CVH Stockholm): “Ut autem hæc mea observatio cum Vestris Petropolitanis comparari posset;
supputandus erat effectus Parallaxeos respectu horum locorum. Assumta itaque Parallaxi Solis = 8″,3 quam ex
observationibus transitus anni 1761 obtinui, inveni, facta supputatione, emersionem totalem fieri debuisse 22″
citius Cajaneburgi, quam Petropoli [...]. Mea itaque observatio ad Lexellianam proxime accedit, a Mayeriana
autem maxime discrepat” = “In order to be able to compare my observation with yours from St. Petersburg, it
was necessary to calculate the effect of parallax with regard to these places. Assuming a solar parallax of 8.3 arc
seconds, which I obtained from the observations of the transit in 1761, I found that, after calculation, the total
emersion should have taken place 22 seconds earlier in Cajaneborg than in St. Petersburg [...]. Thus, my
observation is closest to that of Lexell and least in harmony with that of [Christianus] Mayer”.
102
Lexell to Planman in Åbo, dated St. Petersburg 25 June 1770 (HUB Helsinki, Planman-samlingen no. 61,
transcript generously provided by Johan Stén): “Hwad Pater Hells observationer för de bägge siste contactus
angår wet jag ei hwad jag skal säga, han har tör hända fabricerat dem efter de Petersburgiska, och då har han ei
just warit mycket lyckeligt, ty wåra observationer äro säkert ei af de accurataste.”
- 313 -
As far as Father Hell’s observations of both last contacts [of Venus with the
limb of the Sun] are concerned, I do not know what to say. He may perhaps
have tried to fabricate them according to the Petropolitan observations. In that
case, he was hardly that lucky, for our observations are surely not the most
accurate that exist.
This comment was made in a private letter and would no doubt have caused a strong reaction
if it had reached Father Hell. It is intriguing to note, however, that Lexell was convinced that
the Jesuit in Vardø had made up his observations; there could be no other cause for the late
publication than that he needed time to manipulate his data sets.
A man in whom Planman and Lexell both confided, Pehr Wargentin in Stockholm, evidently
felt responsibility for the situation. Accordingly, he asked the amateur astronomer Hellant in
Torneå (now Haparanda, Tornio) to check whether the weather conditions in Vardø really had
been as favourable as Hell claimed. When Hellant visited a market in Utsjok on the borders
between the Danish-Norwegian and Swedish(-Finnish) realms, a representative of the local
population of Vardø confirmed that the weather had been beautiful (“smukt”). This testimony
appears to have convinced Wargentin, at least.103
The leading university of the German-speaking world during the Enlightenment, the Georgia
Augusta in Göttingen, had been the workplace of Tobias Mayer, who passed away in 1762.
His successor, Abraham Gotthelf Kästner (1719-1800), may not have been an astronomer of
Mayer’s eminence, but as a book reviewer, he was something of a hack. Notably, Kästner
published numerous reviews in the German equivalent to the Journal des Sçavans, the
Göttingische Anzeigen von gelehrten Sachen. Like its French predecessor, reviews in the
Anzeigen were as a rule published anonymously. However, in the copy that has been scanned
and made accessible on the internet by the Göttinger Digitalisierungszentrum, the identity of
the reviewers are usually noted in the margin. So also in the issue for 7 April 1770, where we
find a review of Hell’s Vardø report with the handwritten note “Kästner”.104 Presuming that
the person who entered these notes was well informed, the review may be read as evidence for
Kästner’s first reaction to the printed report.
103
Cf. Tobé 1991, pp. 147-149.
Göttingische Anzeigen von gelehrten Sachen unter der Aufsicht der Königl. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften
42. Stück. Den 7. April 1770., pp. 353-356, here p. 353.
104
- 314 -
The review is astonishingly positive and also quite long. Kästner characterises the method of
determining the pole height as “scharfsinnig” (‘sagacious’) and there is no hint of scepticism
concerning any of the practical procedures or theoretical deliberations of Father Hell. Nor is it
mentioned that the report arrived rather late. In sum, the overall assessment is that the
Observatio Transitus Veneris ... Wardoëhusii ... facta contains “so much new and important,
that this will excuse the length of this summary [i.e., review]”.105
Even more lengthy was the review in the Journal des Sçavans, which appeared in the issue for
September 1770.106 Although the name of the author is suppressed, there can be little doubt
about his identity – Jérôme de Lalande. The review is balanced. The boldness of Hell, who
took upon himself this strenuous and dangerous expedition, is emphasised at the outset, and
the concluding lines are certainly full of flattery of both Hell and his sponsor, the King of
Denmark, who “could have made no better choice than that of giving this task to Father
Hell”.107 In-between, however, the reviewer raises some objections. “We are unaware of what
might have forced Father Hell to keep an important observation hidden for so long, while
Europe’s astronomers made haste to publish their data”,108 he states, without exploring the
matter further. Furthermore, he criticises strongly Hell’s determination of the latitude of
Vardø. The reviewer finds the method hilarious, and is quite explicit on this. The same
applied to the determination of the longitude of Vardø, which Hell had calculated through a
method differing from that exposited by Lalande in his Astronomie. Thus, according to the
reviewer, Hell based both his latitude and his longitude investigations on false premises. He
also disagrees with the Jesuit’s determination of the duration of the transit, criticising his
peculiar definition of the moments of “true contact” between Venus and the limb of the Sun.
However, all these objections did not detract from “the importance of this observation from
Vardø, the most complete that we have received from the European North”.109
For all its criticism, then, Lalande’s official review was written in a sober style. The stinging
sentence has to do with the incomprehensible “hiding” of the observation, but that is not the
105
Op.cit., p. 356: “Jn gegenwärtiger [scil. Abhandlung] ist so viel Neues und Wichtiges, das solches die Länge
dieses Auszuges entschuldigen wird”.
106
Journal des Sçavans, Septembre 1770, pp. 619-622.
107
Op.cit., p. 622: “ce Prince [i.e., le Roi de Dannemarck] ne pouvoit mieux choisir qu’il n’a fait en donnant au
P. Hell cette mission”.
108
Op.cit., p. 619: “Nous ignorons quelle est la cause qui a pu obliger le P. Hell de tenir si long-tems cachée une
observation importante, tandis que tous les Astronomes de l’Europe s’empressoient de publier de leurs”.
109
Op.cit., p. 622: “Nous avons insisté sur ces détails à cause de l’importance de cette observation de Wardoë, la
plus complette que nous ayons reçue du nord de l’Europe”.
- 315 -
same as accusing the author of fraud. ‘Behind the scenes’, however, the tone was harsher. In a
letter to the Royal Danish Academy of Sciences, Lalande expressed queries for the belated
communication of the Vardø observation, adding threats which Hell found rather abusive.
Lalande also characterised the Danish Society as “virtually unknown” and wondered whether
it had in mind to publish memoirs, and if so, when, etc. Lalande expressed these queries to the
Danish Society in a letter which he probably wrote immediately after the reception of Hell’s
report. Unfortunately, the original is lost, and we know its contents only from the travel diary
of Sajnovics.110
The criticism of Lalande was not shared by every savant of Paris. An anonymous reviewer in
the Journal Enyclopédique, May 1770, wrote very favourably about the Observatio and added
flattery about “the thoroughness and clarity that are characteristic of him [i.e., Father Hell]
and that render his works so useful for those who cultivate practical astronomy”. No hint of
skepticism is detectable, except that Father Hell’s observation had been awaited with
impatience (“avec impatience”).111
Even though substantial parts of the correspondence of Father Hell is lost or awaiting
discovery, there is enough evidence to demonstrate that he was informed of far harsher
accusations. In a letter dated 23 June 1770, the archbishop and amateur astronomer Cardinal
de Luynes wrote the following:112
My Honourable Father! I have received, My Honourable Father, and read with
the greatest possible pleasure, the details of Your observation of Venus passing
in front of the disc of the Sun. I admire Your good fortune in having had clear
weather, and perfectly clear weather at that, during the two most important
110
Sajnovics, travel diary 1768-1770, entry on 3 April 1770 (WUS Vienna): “heri Venit Epistola a De la Lande
in qua Satis arroganter queritur tarditatem Comunicatæ Observationis cum Parisinis, et minas satis
Contumeliosas adjicit. Sub finem de societate scientiarum Danica quasi ignota perconctatur, et num in animo
habeat acta edendi, et quando? querit &ce:” = “A letter arrived from Lalande yesterday in which he rather
arrogantly complains about the late communication of the observation with the astronomers of Paris, adding
some rather abusive threats. Towards the end of the letter he characterises the Danish Society of Sciences as
virtually unknown, and asks if it plans to publish some journal, and if so, when, etc.”.
111
Journal Encyclopédique, Mai 1770, pp. 344-352, quotation from p. 345: “l’étendue & la clarté qui lui sont
ordinaires, & qui rendent ses ouvrages si utiles à ceux qui cultivent l’astronomie pratique”.
112
De Luynes to Hell, dated Paris 23 June 1770 (a copy in the handwriting of Hell at WUS): “Mon R. Pere. J’ay
recu, et lú avec le plus grand plaisir Mon R. Pere le detail de Votre observation de Venus passant sur le disque
du soleil, j’ay admire votre bonne fortune d’avoir eu le tems serein, et parfaitement serein dans les deux
moments les plus importants, et les excellentes methodes, que vous avés employées pour suppler aux
commodites, que vous manquoient. On à voulu eléver à notre Academie des difficultes, sur ce, que le detail de
votre observation nous etoit arrivé si tard, ce retardement pouvant donner lieu aux critiques, de pretendre, que
votre delay pouvoit donner lieu de soupçonnes, qu’ayant eu les tems de recevoir les autres observations, vous
auria pu y accomoder la votre”.
- 316 -
moments, as well as the excellent methods that You have employed to meet the
lack of commodities which You were facing. Efforts have been made at our
Academy [i.e. the Académie des Sciences] to raise objections concerning the
fact that the details of your observation reached us so late, a delay which was
capable of making room for criticisms, claiming that Your lateness could make
room for suspicions that You, having had the time to receive the other
observations, could have made Your observation match theirs.
Although de Luynes did not state who had raised these allegations, and notwithstanding the
fact that he vigorously rejected them and gave the Viennese Jesuit his full support, a scientific
controversy was in the making.
II.3.4 THE CONTROVERSY OVER THE SOLAR PARALLAX, 1770-1775
In descriptions of the status of the Vardøhus data in the controversy over the solar parallax, it
is sometimes forgotten that there had been a similar controversy also in the aftermath of 1761.
The principal calculations based upon that year’s observations have been presented in Section
II.1.2 above. At one end stood Alexandre Guy Pingré, who had observed the transit from the
Cape of Good Hope in Africa. His observation was hard to reconcile with other data sets, and
besides struggles over the accuracy of his observation, Pingré had a hard time defending his
solar parallax of more ten arc seconds. At the very other end of the scale was Anders
Planman, who argued for a solar parallax of about 8.3 arc seconds.
In this situation, Father Hell opted for a preliminary parallax of about nine arc seconds, in the
Ephemerides for the year 1764. Lalande agreed completely, and used almost exactly the same
wording as Hell in the first edition of his textbook Astronomie, published in 1764. In a letter
dated 29 December 1769, Lalande reveals to Hell that113
Monsieur Pingré was really annoyed because of the letter that you wrote to him.
He complained to me, as if I was behind it. However, it is first and foremost he
himself who is to blame for criticising in an indecent manner the observations of
Yours, which are more valuable than his own.
During the 1760s, Father Hell gradually became more self confident and disputed not only
Pingré’s parallax, but also some other works by French astronomers, as recounted in Section
113
Lalande to Hell in Vienna, dated Paris 29 December 1763 (quoted after Pinzger 1927, p. 191. Mrs Vargha’s
transcript of the same letter is inaccurate): “M. Pingré a été bien fâché de la lettre, que vous lui avés écrite, il
m’en a fait des plaintes, comme si j’en étois la cause; mais il avoit tort le premier de critiquer d’une manière
indécente vos observations, qui valent mieux, que les siennes”.
- 317 -
II.1.4 above. However, prior to 1770 he seems not to have been engaged in any disputes with
the man whom Jean-Claude Pecker characterises as “the most important French astronomer of
the eighteenth century” – Lalande.114 For all its fragmentary status, the epistolary evidence to
hand suggests that Hell and Lalande remained close allies during the 1760s. That changed
with Lalande’s reaction to the Vardø report.
Around the year 1761, Father Hell and Lalande were both ‘shooting stars’ in the European
Republic of Letters. Lalande waited impatiently behind the back of Delisle to become the
main nodal astronomer on the international stage of contemporary astronomy. Father Hell was
almost as ambitious, but Vienna was hardly any great power in matters of astronomy. As a
nodal astronomer, Hell’s main ‘capital’ was Central Europe and its surroundings, along with
certain Jesuit connections in China. It was from from these regions that he was able to
assemble exclusive data sets and theoretical expositions for his Ephemerides.
Lalande considered himself a nodal astronomer for more than France. In his own eyes at least,
he was the world wide coordinator of the entire Venus transit enterprise. The first seed of
discontent was probably sown when neither Hell nor Denmark-Norway asked for his advice
in the planning of the Vardø expedition. But their independent behaviour went beyond that.
The data sets from Vardø were not shared with Lalande immediately – he had to wait in line
behind the Danish King, along with every astronomer except the few Copenhagen-based
savants that attended oral presentations given in the sessions of the Danish Society of
Sciences in November and December 1769 (see Section II.3.2). A third element that annoyed
Lalande was the peculiar method in calculating the coordinates of Vardø, especially the pole
height method described above. The fourth issue at stake was of course the conclusions drawn
concerning the solar parallax itself. Unlike the previous occasion, Lalande and Hell disagreed
fundamentally here. Instead of standing on the side-lines, the two stepped forward to become
main characters in a heated scientific controversy.
When calculating the solar parallax, contemporaneous astronomers could choose between two
strategies. One option was to wait for all observations to be published and then undertake a
thorough survey of all the available data. Ideally, such a survey would lead to a decisive
conclusion, ‘the author’s final word’ on the matter. Another modus operandi was to make
114
Pecker 2007, p. 3: “Lalande fut en effet sans doute le plus important astronome français du XVIII e siècle.”
- 318 -
repeated calculations as the various data sets emerged. Tentative adjustments following
preliminary calculations would be followed by new tentative adjustments and so forth. Father
Hell chose the former, Lalande the latter strategy.
Lalande published parallaxes of 9″ (Gazette de France, January 1770) or 9.18″ (Journal des
Sçavans, April 1770) before he had gotten access to the observation of Hell. Having received
the Vardø observation as well as Chappe’s from California, he adjusted it to approximately
8.75″ (Gazette de France, December 1770) or 8.80″ (Journal des Sçavans, May 1771) or
again 8.75″ (2nd edn. of the Astronomie, August 1771), until he upon the arrival of the Tahiti
observation changed it yet again, to 8.50″ (Gazette de France, September 1771; Journal des
Sçavans, December 1771). From then on, he stayed fixed on 8.50″, or 8.60″ as a maximum
(3rd edn. of the Astronomie, 1792).
If we look behind these numbers and pay attention to how Lalande arrived at his results, we
find that he – although dismayed at its late arrival – initially held no prejudices against the
Vardø observation. Quite the contrary; in a letter to Boscovich, dated 15 December 1771, he
puts together a table in which the observations of Cajaneborg and Vardø are compared to
those of Hudson Bay, California and Tahiti, adding that115
The largest difference between the three results yielded by comparisons with
Cajaneborg is 0.5 arc seconds, whereas with Vardøhus it is only 0.3″. This
makes it probable that the the Vardøhusian observation is more exact than the
former. Thus, if we were to take the mean between the three comparisons,
staying closer to the observation of Vardøhus than that of Cajaneborg in a 5:3
relation and then taking the mean between the three last results, we get [a solar
parallax of] 8.6″ rather than 8.5″.
Simultaneously, Hell arrived at his conclusion of 8.70″, which he based primarily upon his
own observation from Vardø and that of Charles Green from Tahiti. The observers in Tahiti
varied several seconds between each other in their determinations of the moments of contact,
but Hell stuck to the observation of the professional astronomer Green, skipping those of the
admiral Cook and the natural historian Daniel Solander. The same applied for the Vardø
observation, where the inexperienced Borchgrevink diverged substantially from Hell and
115
Lalande to Boscovich, dated Paris 15 December 1772 (Varićak 1912, pp. ccclxviii-ccclxx): “la plus grande
difference des trois resultats avec Cajanebourg est de 0″5, et avec Wardhus de 0″3 seulement, en sorte qu’il y a
plus de probabilité pour l’exactitude de l’observ. de Wardhus. Si donc on vouloit prendre le milieu entre les trois
comparaisons en se tenant plus près de l’observation de Wardhus que de celle de Cajanebourg dans le rapport de
5 a 3 et qu’on prit ensuite le milieu entre les trois derniers resultats on auroit plustot 8″6 que 8″5”.
- 319 -
Sajnovics. Trusting the professional and most experienced observers, Father Hell rejected all
other observations and tried to persuade his colleagues that the question of the parallax was
now settled to the accuracy of ±0.01″.116 It is known that on 20 December 1771, Hell wrote a
letter to Lalande, in which he tried to persuade him to exclude the observation of Planman
entirely from the calculations of the parallax.117 The tone of the letter was perhaps a bit too
self confident, for by 10 March 1772, Lalande had become convinced of the opposite, as is
seen in a letter to Boscovich: “What is your opinion of Father Hell, have you seen him
observing, is he able, is he well trained? I conclude with the utmost dismay that his
observation from Vardøhus is in accordance with no other, and that it has to be discarded”.118
Similarly, he advised his colleague Jean Bernoulli III in Berlin, “do not trust the remarks of
Father Hell, he is surely wrong, and this will do no honour to your work [i.e., the Receuil pour
les Astronomes]”.119
Lalande published his rejection of Hell’s data in April 1772, in the 44-page Mémoire sur le
passage de Vénus devant le disque du Soleil (‘Memoir on the transit of Venus in front of the
disc of the Sun).120 Here, Lalande explained how he had found the mean solar parallax to be
8.50″, by means of virtually every other observation than that of Vardø. As for the competing
observation by Planman, Lalande’s conclusion was quite devastating to Hell.121
This observation from Cajaneborg has become the most important among all
those that were made in Europe, for it has served as confirmation and the
element of comparison for all remote observations, with which it is in perfect
harmony.
Lalande’s memoir was received as little short of a declaration of war by the Viennese Jesuit.
In less than three months, he managed to compose – and print – an apology of 116 pages, ‘On
116
Hell to Weiss in Tyrnavia, dated Vienna 26 December 1771 (Pinzger 1927, pp. 107-109); Hell to Fixlmillner
in Cremifanum, dated Vienna 17 July 1772 (Rabenalt 1986, p. 117); Hell, “De parallaxi Solis …” 1772, pp. 107108.
117
Hell 1772, p. 6.
118
Lalande to Boscovich, dated 10 March 1772 (see footnote 2 above).
119
Lalande to Bernoulli in Berlin, dated 18 March 1772 (to be published in Dumont & Pecker [eds., in
preparation]): “Défiez vous des remarques du p. Hell, il se trompe à coup sûr, et cela ne figurera pas bien dans
votre ouvrage.” I am indebted to Mme Dumont for permission to quote this work in progress.
120
I have not had access to the original, but have used the extensive summary in the Journal des Sçavans,
Septembre 1772, pp. 613-623 (“Mémoire sur le Passage de Vénus devant le disque du Soleil, observé le 3 Juin
1769, pour servir de suite à l’explication de la Carte publiée en 1764 ... Paris”) and other sources.
121
Lalande, Memoire sur le passage de Venus ..., p. 14 (quoted from Handl.Stockh., April-June 1772, p. 191):
“Cette observation de Cajanebourg est devenue la plus importante de toutes celles d’Europe, en ce qu’elle a servi
de confirmation & de terme de comparaison pour toutes les observations éloignées, avec lesquelles elle
s’accorde complettement”.
- 320 -
the Parallax of the Sun Deduced From Observations of the Transit of Venus of the Year 1769’
(De Parallaxi Solis ex Observationibus Transitus Veneris Anni 1769). The memoir contains
both a detailed calculation of the solar parallax and a furious attack on Lalande. As Hell wrote
in one of his letters accompanying the monograph (to Wargentin, dated Vienna 15 July
1772):122
If my style, so untypical of me until now, seems a little over-aggressive to you,
I would like you to consider the un-heard-of, and totally unfounded, accusation
of having made up or altered the data that has been put forward by Monsieur
Lalande against my person (who did not exactly start my career in astronomy
yesterday); this had actually deserved a much stronger response. In more than
one letter, I have advised Lalande to abstain from defending the Cajaneborg
observation and cease attacking the one from Vardø, but in response to my
friendly, even privately, communicated advice, he has decided to brand me in
public, an act I deemed I should certainly not pass by in silence.
In the De Parallaxi Solis, Hell blames Lalande for having shown too much of that arrogance
characterising some representatives of great powers. Lalande, he argues, must clearly have
felt dismayed that neither Hell nor the court in Copenhagen asked for his advice in the
planning of the Vardø expedition. Besides, he and his French colleagues were obviously
offended that Hell did not dispatch an extract of his observation journal in manuscript directly
to Paris, “as to a tribunal of astronomy” (tamquam ad Tribunal astronomicum), with the first
express mail possible. Hence, when the report finally arrived, they judged that it must have
been “adulterated”.123 This prejudice must have brought Lalande to neglect the fact that
Planman had been been stationed at a site (Kajaani) where the Sun was extremely low above
the horizon, causing the limbs of the sun to undulate strongly, whereas Hell in Vardø had
enjoyed perfect atmospheric conditions with the Sun elevated more than 6 ½ and 10º above
the sea during ingress and egress respectively. Hell meant he could prove Planman to have
either defined the longitude of his site erroneously by at least 35 seconds, or observed the
exterior contact of egress wrongly by 35 seconds.124 Lalande, on the other hand, who
considered Hell’s report worthy of rejection, had made various sophisticated calculations in
order to make the Kajaani observation as complete as he needed it. The interior contact of
122
Hell to Wargentin, dated Vienna 15 July 1772 (CVH): “si Tibi stylus meus, mihi hactenus insolitus,
concitatior videatur, perpendisse Te velim, quod inauditum fictionis, aut correctionis crimen à celeberrimo de La
Lande, mihi, qui non heri natus sum Astronomus, sine ullo fundamento intentatum, longe majora meritum
fuisset; non unis à me De La Landius admonitus est litteris, ut à defensione Cajaneburgensis observationis
abstineret, Wardhusianumque impugnare cessaret; pro amica hac, eaque privata admonitione publicam mihi
inurere voluit notam, quam sine dubio silentio prætereundam non censui”.
123
Hell 1772, pp. 86-93.
124
Hell 1772, pp. 8-39.
- 321 -
egress – unobserved by Planman because of clouds – was found by Lalande by altering the
diameter of both Venus and the Sun by a number of seconds. In this way, he managed to fit
Planman’s observations to the data obtained in Tahiti and California, thereby defending his
result of 8.50″ for the mean horizontal parallax of the Sun.125 Repeatedly, Hell dismisses his
Paris antagonist as “the protector and defender of the incomplete and erroneous Cajaneborg
observation” and as a friend of his personal ambition rather that the truth.126 But if Planman’s
observation really had been as exact as Lalande wanted it to be, each and every colleague of
his must have been mistaken by between 24 and 48 seconds in time!127 This absurdity would
no doubt lead neutral colleagues to agree that the parallax value of Hell, rather than that of
Lalande, was correct. In sum, Hell concluded that “Tahiti and Vardø will be the two columns
upon which the true Solar parallax of 8.70″ will rest firmly and be preserved – like upon
pillars of bronze – to the eternal memory of Posterity, a memory which coming generations
will decorate again and again with their palms of victory”.128 For,129
we are now living in a time [...] when both England, Germany, Italy, Denmark,
Sweden and Russia excel in their own astronomers, who know very well how to
decide for themselves what difference there is between truth and wrong.
One of the “neutral” and able calculators alluded to by Hell was the young Lexell in St.
Petersburg. Lexell published various attempts between the autumn of 1770 and the end of the
year 1772, arriving at parallaxes of 8.80″, 8.76″ and 8.63″.130 During the controversy, he was
virtually bombarded with letters from both Hell and Lalande, and the latter even went as far as
asking the pupil of Euler to act as a judge in the quarrel that had broken out between himself
and the Viennese.131 Lexell’s correspondence with Hell and Lalande has – with one exception
– not been available for this study. His reactions to their activities can be studied, however, in
125
Hell 1772, pp. 103-105.
Hell 1772, pp. 8, 38, 86, 94, 110, etc.
127
Hell 1772, pp. 100-101.
128
Hell 1772, p. 109 (see footnote 1 above).
129
Hell 1772, pp. 114-115: “Ea nunc vivimus tempora, quibus hodie, ut olim, & Anglia, & Germania, & Italia, &
Dania, & Svecia, & Russia suis excellunt Astronomis, qui ipsi quoque discernere norunt, quid veritatem intersit,
& errorem”.
130
A. I. Lexell, “Determinatio accuratior verae Parallaxis Solis et reliquorum elementorum”, in Anonymous (ed.)
Collectio omnium observationum quae occasione Transitus Veneris per Solem A. MDCCLXIX iussu Augustae
per Imperium Russicum institutae fuerunt una cum Theoria indeque deductis conclusionibus 1770, pp. 533-574,
especially pp. 538-539 & 556; Disqvisitio de investiganda vera qvantitate Parallaxeos Solis, ex Transitu Veneris
ante discum Solis Anno 1769. cui accedunt animadversiones in tractatum Rev. Pat. Hell de Parallaxi Solis 1772,
especially p. 59.
131
Lexell to Wargentin, St. Petersburg 5 October 1772 (CVH).
126
- 322 -
the frequent letters he sent to Wargentin in this period, all preserved in Stockholm.132 In fact,
Lexell found the arguments of both Hell and Lalande unconvincing. For one thing, he was
puzzled that Planman (and Lalande) was so sure about the accuracy of the Kajaani
observation133. Instead of rejecting one of the observations, Lexell argued that the duration of
the transit as observed in Vardø and Kajaani had to be adjusted by at least 10 seconds in each
of the two places134. In one of his published memoirs on the parallax, we find him criticising
Lalande and Hell equally when he sums up his arguments by explaining that “I could not
bring myself – contrary to all probability, and in favour of a single observation – to accuse all
others of being erroneous, nor to put such faith in one particular astronomer, however
experienced he may be, that I reckon him to be in possession of some sort of prerogative over
others for being infallible”135. His wording in private letters is even harsher. To Wargentin,
Lexell writes that Father Hell in the De Parallaxi Solis has proven himself to be “the worst
charlatan possible [...] not even endowed with sufficient theoretical knowledge to investigate
the question of the parallax”.136 His judgement on Lalande is no less severe:137
What sway prejudices hold over human beings, even in such matters where they
should be led by their love of truth alone, I have had occasion to witness in
Lalande […]. If every person who writes about this theme would act as
honestly, one can easily find whatever parallax seems most agreeable.
132
Altogether 111 letters from Lexell to Wargentin are kept at the Centrum för vetenskapshistoria in Stockholm.
Of particular interest are his reaction to Lalande’s Mémoire sur le passage, dated 13 July 1772 and his reaction
to Hell’s De Parallaxi Solis, dated 7 September 1772.
133
Lexell to Wargentin, St. Petersburg 13 July 1772 (CVH): “Det förekommer mig besynnerligt af Planman, at
han håller sina observationer för så infallibla, där jag likwäl kan bewisa honom så wisst som 2 gånger 2 är fyra,
at hans observation på den sista contactus är felaktig åtminstone på 10″” = “I find it ackward of Planman to
maintain that his observations are so infallible, when I can demonstrate to him that, as sure as to and to makes
four, his observation of the last contact is wrong by at least 10 seconds”.
134
Lexell, “Disqvisitio de investiganda Parallaxi Solis ex Transitu Veneris per Solem Anno 1769” as printed in
the Novi Commentarii for the year 1772 (1773), pp. 609-672, espec. pp. 639-647.
135
Lexell, “Disqvisitio de investiganda …” 1773, p. 669: “Id certe a me impetrare non potui, vt contra omnem
verisimilitudinem, in fauorem vnius obseruationis, omnes reliquas erroris accusarem, vel vt crederem quempiam
Astronomum vtcunque exercitatum aliqua infallibilitatis praerogatiua prae caeteris instructum esse”.
136
Lexell to Wargentin in Stockholm, dated St. Petersburg 7 September 1772 (CVH): “Dock tror jag wäl kunna
förswara både Prof: Euler och mig i synnerhet mot Pat: Hell, hwilken i synnerhet genom denna sista skrift
ådagalagt, at han är den största quacksalfware som kan gifwas. [...] Hwad Pat: Hells egna undersökningar
angående Parallaxen angår, måtte jag bekänna, at jag aldrig kunnat förmoda dem så felaktiga, så barnsliga och
löjeliga. Det förekommer mig, at han ei ens är underbygd med nog Theorie, at undersöka detta ämne”.
137
Lexell to Wargentin in Stockholm, dated St. Petersburg 25 February 1771 (CVH): “Hwad fördomar äga för
magt på menniskor, äfven i sådana mål där Kärlek til sanningen endast borde drifva dem, har jag haft exempel på
i de la Lande [...]. Wilja alla som skrifva i detta ämne lika upriktigt handla, så kan man wäl utan möda, finna
hwad Parallax hälst behagas”.
- 323 -
Another participant in the debate, Anders Planman, followed the same line as Lalande and
Lexell. In publications ranging from the beginning of 1771 until the end of 1774, he argued
for parallaxes of approximately 8.24″, 8.43″, 8.51″ and finally 8.40″.138
The temperature was at its highest in the year 1772. In December of that year, Planman
published a dissertation where he found the parallax to be exactly as Lalande had concluded,
and rejected Hell’s De Parallaxi Solis as “a mishmash of errors” (errorum farraginem). The
only data from Vardø that could possibly be used were those of the amateur Borchgrevink, he
argued.139 In this turmoil, we find a single diplomatic voice; the network figure who stayed in
close contact with all the participants in the quarrel, Wargentin. As Lalande, Planman, Lexell
and Hell attacked each other in public, they all confided their feelings to Wargentin as a
neutral, yet influential and respected colleague. The Swede disliked the strife, however, and
tried his best to cool down the temperature. In a letter to Hell’s confrère Weiss, dated
Stockholm 9 March 1773, Wargentin says:140
I strongly dislike the all too harsh controversy which has arisen between
Lalande, Hell and Planman, over the observations of the last transit of Venus.
There ought to be no doubt that both Hell and Planman have exerted all their
efforts – their eyes as well as their intellect – while observing, and that they
have published it bona fide. They may have made mistakes of a few seconds
each, for they are, after all human beings […]. The safest solution would
therefore have been to concede something to each observer, by placing one’s
faith in a mean parallax, calculated on the basis of both observations.
The effect of Wargentin’s (and perhaps other sensible minds’) diplomacy can be seen in the
Journal des Sçavans for February 1773, where Lalande lets print a ‘Letter concerning the
138
Planman, “Formuler, At Uträkna Parallaxens verkan för observerade in- och utgångs momenter, vid en
Planets gång under Solen”, in Handl.Stockh. for January-March 1771, pp. 66-74; “Om Solens Parallaxis, i
anledning af Observationer öfver Venus i Solen, år 1769”, in Handl.Stockh. for April-June 1772, pp. 183-191;
Animadversiones Subitaneæ in Appendicem Hellianam ad Ephemerides Anni MDCCLXXIII, De Parallaxi Solis,
Åbo 1772; “Förklaring på de Formler, at uträkna Parallaxens verkan, för observerade in-och utgångs-momenter
vid en Planets gång under Solen, som anfördes uti Handlingarne för år 1771”, in Handl.Stockh. for OctoberDecember 1774, pp. 306-319.
139
Planman / Kreander, Animadversiones subitaneae ... [1772b], p. 12.
140
Wargentin to Weiss in Tyrnavia, dated Stockholm 9 March 1773 (printed in Vargha 1990, pp. 106-107 [my
corrections in brackets]): “Magnopere mihi displicet controversia, inter Lalandium, Hellium et Planmanum orta,
et nimis acerbe agitat[a], de observationibus ultimi Transitus Veneris[.] Nullum esse debet dubium, quin uterque
posteriorum in observando omnes oculorum et animi nervos intenderit et observata bona fide retulerit. Uterque
autem paucis secundis errare potuit, homines enim sunt, et, qui expertus est, facillimum esse in istis momentis
determinandis errorem, nulla observatoris culpa, concedat necesse est. Tutissimum itaque fuisset, suum cuique
observatori tribuere, et mediae acqui[e]scere Parallaxi, ex utraque observatione conclusae”.
- 324 -
calculations by Monsieur Lexell and Father Hell’ as well as a ‘Letter on the solar parallax’. 141
The tone has now become more mild.142
Father Hell […] appeared to declare war on all the astronomers of Paris in his
booklet, by contesting the quality of the observation of Monsieur l’Abbé
Chappe, by bringing back old disputes concerning the alleged moon of Venus,
the longitude of Vienna, the geodetic measurements made in Germany […], but
he should make these concessions to me: that our correspondence has always
been filled with friendship and respect from my part, that I have praised him on
every occasion and that I have never given place in our dispute for any personal
complaints except that which concerns his having made the astronomers wait for
so long for an observation that was so necessary to them.
Furthermore, Lalande was careful not to attack Lexell; he even admitted some errors in the
Memoire sur le passage which the latter had pointed out. As to the parallax, he still believed
that the value of 8.50″, or a maximum of 8.55″, was most likely to be true. But with surprising
humbleness he added that143
To sum up, if the parallax is 8.55 arc seconds or 8.70, the difference is no more
than a 57th part of the total, and the expedition of Father Hell will nevertheless
have the advantage of having contributed to draw the limits of our uncertainties
closer to each other.
A rapid exchange of letters between Hell and Lexell in the winter of 1772/73 also ended in a
sort of reconciliation. Hell in fact took the liberty of publishing one of Lexell’s letters in his
Ephemerides, but added to almost every sentence such long and intricate footnotes that in
effect, the voice of Lexell was almost drowned.144 Remarkably, Hell recognised that he had
committed several errors in the calculations of the De Parallaxi Solis (although for a number
of mistakes he blamed the printer), but refused to alter his initial conclusion; the parallax, he
maintained, was still nothing short of 8.70″, or 8.70″ ±0.03″ at the most.145
141
Journal des Sçavans, Février 1773, “Lettre sur les calculs de M. Lexell et du P. Hell” (pp. 90-93) and “Lettre
sur la parallaxe du Soleil” (pp. 113-115).
142
Journal des Sçavans, Février 1773, p. 113: “Le P. Hell […] paroît déclarer la guerre à tous les Astronomes de
Paris dans sa Brochure, en contestant la bonté de l’observation de M. l’Abbé Chappe, en rappelant d’anciennes
contestations sur la prétendu Satellite de Vénus, sur la longitude de Vienne, sur les mesures géodesiques faites en
Allemagne […] mais il doit me rendre cette justice, que notre correspondance a toujours eté pleine d’amitié & de
respect de ma part, que je l’ai célébré dans toutes les occasions, & que je n’ai mis dans notre dispute actuelle
d’autre plainte personelle contre lui, que celle d’avoir fait attendre si long tems aux Astronomes une observation
qui leur étoit si nécessaire”.
143
Journal des Sçavans, Février 1773, p. 115: “Enfin que la parallaxe soit de 8″55 ou de 8″70, la différence n’est
que de la 57e partie du total, & le voyage du P. Hell n’aura pas moins l’avantage d’avoir contribué à resserer les
limites de nos incertitudes”.
144
Letter from Lexell to Hell in Vienna, dated St. Petersburg 22 February 1773, printed in the “Supplementum
dissertationis de Parallaxi Solis”, in Ephemerides Astronomicae for the year 1774 (1773), pp. 15-68.
145
Hell 1773, p. 62.
- 325 -
Simultaneously, Pingré was busy presenting to the Academie des Sciences a series of lectures,
where he concluded that the solar parallax had to be 8.80″, “à très-peu-près” (“quite
accurately”).146 The approach of Pingré was more open-minded than that of Hell or Lalande.
The only thing he rejected was the exterior contact of egress as observed in Cajaneborg;
Planman’s ingress data could still be used, he argued. As for Tahiti, Pingré upon investigation
found that the observation of Green had to be left out; the same he did with Borchgrevink’s
data from Vardø. He even tested thoroughly Rumovskii’s observation from Kola, something
Lalande, Lexell and Planman had all neglected.147 Lalande was upset, but felt confident that
he would be able to make a fool of him, as he said in a letter to Wargentin.148 Hell, on the
other hand, felt an enormous relief. The difference between their conclusions – 8.80″ instead
of 8.70″ – he found to originate from Pingré’s use of Cook’s observation instead of that of
Green. But this was hardly any offence; the Jesuit Father found that his credibility had been
restored and the notorious egress data from Cajaneborg had been rejected from the
calculations.149
At least publicly, Lalande appears to have carried no more logs to the fire. And after
publishing a 162-page Supplementum to the memoir De Parallaxi Solis in the autumn of
1773, Hell too withdrew from the debate. Planman published an apology against this last
work of Hell in 1774. He there argued for a probable parallax of 8.40″, but the article appears
not to have been widely disseminated.150 Lexell groaned to Wargentin that the Jesuit could
only have had two reasons for publishing a private letter of his in the Supplementum; the first
being a desire to defend his conclusion of 8.70″ for the parallax, the second, a desire to hurt
Lexell’s reputation. Lexell explained that he too planned to publish another apology against
Hell, “if the Academy agrees to its publication”, but this plan appears to have come to
nothing.151
146
Pingré, “Mémoire sur la parallaxe du Soleil, Déduite des meilleurs Observations de la durée du passage de
Vénus sur son disque le 3 Juin 1769” 1775, p. 419.
147
Hell had, it is true, presented a brief investigation of Rumovskii’s observation and concluded that it gave a
parallax of 8.73″, but without putting much weight on this; cf. Hell 1772, pp. 80-84.
148
Lalande to Wargentin in Stockholm, dated Paris 5 January 1773 (CVH): “mais je crois que je pourrai me
mocquer de lui”.
149
Hell to Weiss in Tyrnavia, dated Vienna 6 April 1773 (Pinzger 1927, pp. 114-117).
150
In Handl.Stockh. for October-December 1774, pp. 306-319 (Planman 1774).
151
Lexell to Wargentin in Stockholm, dated St. Petersburg 11 / 22 June 1774 (CVH).
- 326 -
The strife ended there, with parallaxes ranging from 8.40″ (Planman) to 8.80″ (Pingré). In the
meantime, Maximilianus Hell had become an ex-Jesuit and all Jesuit observatories in Central
Europe were taken over by the state. His abilities as an observer and calculator had been
questioned and his ‘capital’ as a nodal astronomer had suffered severe losses with the
suppression of the Society of Jesus.
Table 6 provides an overview of principal observers and sites in 1769, from Iakutsk in the
East to Tahiti in the West. The abbreviations I,1-2 and E,1-2 represent the exterior and
interior contacts during ingress and the interior and exterior contacts during egress
respectively. To use Iakutsk as an example: in this case, the published report states that the
leading observer Islen’ev observed the interior contact at ingress along with both contacts of
the egress, whereas his anonymous assistant observed only the interior contact at egress. The
sources for the table have in nearly all cases been the original reports.152 Shortcuts for readers
who wish to inspect the actual data are provided by Encke (1824) and Newcomb (1890).
At what time the data sets in question reached Paris has been recounted in Section II.3.3
above. A chronological overview of calculations of the solar parallax based upon the Venustransit observations of 1769 is given in Table 7. The table highlights the contributions of
Lalande, Hell, Planman, Hornsby and Lexell. Other calculations are known to have been
made by other astronomers, but these did not influence the international scientific controversy
in the same degree and are therefore omitted. Various letters preserved at the Russian
Academy of Sciences in St. Petersburg, at the Vienna University Observatory and at the
Royal Academy of Sciences in Stockholm have served as a basis for the table, along with
printed monographs and journal articles by Lexell, Pingré and Hornsby as well as Lalande and
Hell from the period 1770-1775. Finally, a manuscript of Lalande recently published by the
Observatoire de Paris has been used as well.153 Where ever this has been possible, an
extremely brief resumé of the observations that have served as the basis for the calculation has
been entered in parentheses.
152
Exceptions are the observations of Don Joseph de Alzate y Ramirez and Joaquin Velázquez de León, which
have been culled from Cassini’s “Histoire abrégée de la parallaxe du soleil” (1772).
153
The manuscript in question has been digitised and is found on the Les rendez-vous de Vénus CD Rom.
- 327 -
TABLE 6 IMPORTANT VENUS TRANSIT OBSERVERS AND SITES, 1769
Principal observations, from East to West
Other observations, E to W
Iakutsk
Batavia
(Jakarta)
Beijing
Orsk
Orenburg
Ponoi
Gur’ev
Kola Town
Rumovskii. Assistants: Okhtenskii, Borodulin
I,1-2,E,1-2
both: I,1-2,E,1
Vardø
Hell. Assistants: Sajnovics, Borchgrevink
I,2,E,1-2
I,2,E,1-2 I,1-2,E,1-2
St. Petersburg
(Imperial Obs.)
Cajaneborg
(Kajaani)
Planman. Assistant: Uhlwijk
I,1-2,E,2
E,2
“North Cape”
(Honningsvåg)
Islen’ev. Assistant: Anonymous
I,2,E,1-2
E,1
Mohr
E,1-2
Dollières,Collas
E,1-2
Christophe Euler
E,1-2
Krafft
E,1-2
Mallet
I,1-2
Lowits. Assistant: Inochods’ev
E,1-2
E,1-2
Mayer w/Stahl,Lexell,J.A.Euler
all: E,1-2
Bayly
I,2
Martinique
Father Christoph (Capuchin Fr.)
I,2
Cambridge,
Winthrop
Mass.
I,1-2
Cap-Haïtien
Pingré w/deFleurieu,delaFilière,
all: I,1-2
Destoures
Lewes Town
Biddle; Bayley
(City of Lewes) I,2;
I,1-2
Philadelphia
Shippen,Williamson,Prior,Thoall: I,2
mson,Erwing
Norristown
Rittenhouse,Lukens,Smith
all: I,2
Hudson Bay
Wales, Dymond
(Fort Prince of Wales) both: I,1-2,E,1-2
Mexico City
Baja California Chappe. Assistants: Pauly;Doz,Medina
Baja California
(San José del Cabo) I,1-2,E,1-2
E,1-2; both:I,1-2,E,1-2 (Santa Ana)
Tahiti
(Pointe Vénus)
Green, Cook. Assistant: Solander
both: I,1-2,E,1-2
I,1-2,E,2
- 328 -
Don Jos. de Alzate y Ramirez
I,2
Joaquin Velázquez de León
I,1-2,E,1-2
TABLE 7 CHRONOLOGY OF PARALLAX CALCULATIONS, 1770-1775
LALANDE
12 Jan. 1770
Gazette de France,
letter to J.A.Euler
HELL / OTHERS
9″
(Pingré,Dymond/Wales,Planman)
18 March 1770
9.10″
letter to J.A.Euler (Hell,Dymond/Wales)
30 March 1770
approx. 9″
letter to Weiss
(“les observations Ameriques”)
April 1770
9.18″
letter in Journal des Sç. (Dymond/Wales,Planman)
3 April 1770
9.10″
letter to Boscovich
(Vardø,HudsonBay)
15 April 1770
9″
letter to J.A.Euler (“les observations d’Amerique”)
14 May 1770
letter to Wargentin
PINGRÉ, 25 April 1770
9″
Mémoir read at the Académie des Sciences
9″
(Pingré 8.9″;Hell,Dymond/Wales 9.1″)
LEXELL, 31 Aug. 1770
8.67″
letter to Wargentin
(Cajaneborg,Vardø in N.)
15 Dec. 1770
letter to Wargentin
a 8.36″, b 8.80″, c 8.54″
(a Chappe,Planman; b Chappe,Hell;
c Chappe,Dymond/Wales)
21 Jan. 1771
8.80″
Manuscript in Observatoire de Paris
8 Feb. 1771
8.75″
letter to Wargentin
(the observations of 1761 & 1769 together)
18 Feb. 1771
a 8.75″, b 8.80″
letter to Boscovich
(a the observations of 1761 & 1769; b California,Vardø)
22 Feb. 1771
8.80″
letter to J.A.Euler (Vardø,California)
May 1771
Anonymous article in
Journal des Sçavans
a 8.36″, b 8.88″, c 8.58″, d 8.80″
(a California,Cajaneborg; b Calif.,Vardø;
c mean value between a & b; d probable value)
August 1771
2nd edn. of l’Astronomie
8.75″
(preliminary result,Tahiti data missing)
17 Sept. 1771
Gazette de France
8.50″
(all 1769 observ.,Tahiti data included)
13 Oct. 1771
letter to Boscovich
28 Oct. 1771
letter to Wargentin
8.50″ ± 0.20″
(Tahiti,HudsonBay,Vardø)
a 8.70″, b 8.30″, c 8.50″
(a Tahiti,Vardø; b Tahiti,Cajaneborg;
c mean value between a & b)
Autumn of 1771
a 8.50″, b 8.60″
PINGRÉ, autumn of 1771
8.88″ ±0.05″
Mémoir read at l’Acad.des Sc. (a probable, b maximum)
Mémoir read at l’Acad.des Sc. (all 1769 observ.)
- 329 -
LALANDE
HELL / OTHERS
Dec. 1771
letter in Journal des Sç.,
dated 17 Sep. 1771
8.50″
(Cook/Green/Solander,
Dymond/Wales,Hell)
LEXELL, Dec. 1771
8.55″ ±0.15″
Article in Handl. (Tahiti,California,HudsonBay,
Stockh.
“observations from Lapland”)
15 Dec. 1771
letters to Wargentin
and Boscovich
8.50″
(Cajaneb./Vardø,Hudson
Bay,California/Tahiti)
HORNSBY, 17 Dec. 1771
8.78″
Paper read at Royal Soc.(Hell,Rumovskii,Wales/
Dymond,Chappe,Cook/Green/Solander)
HELL, 26 Dec. 1771
8.70″ ±0.01″
letter to Weiss (“omnes Americanae”,Vardø)
HELL, 27 Dec. 1771
8.70″
letter to Fixlmillner
(Tahiti,Hell)
21 Jan. 1772
letter to Boscovich
a 8.50″, b 8.60″
(a probable, b maximum)
HELL, 1 Jan. 1772
letter to Wargentin
April 1772
8.50″
WARGENTIN, 7 April 1772
Mémoire sur le passage… (Planman only in European North) letter to Lalande
12 May 1772
letter to Wargentin
8.70″ ±0.01″
(Green,Hell)
less than 8.5″
minimum 8.50″
PLANMAN, June 1772
8.43″ ±0.06″
Article in Handl.Stockh. (Cajaneb.only in North)
HELL, July 1772
8.70″ ±0.01″
De Parallaxi Solis… (Hell,Dymond/Wales,Green)
LEXELL, 13 July 1772
letter to Wargentin
minim. 8.60″
LEXELL, autumn of 1772
8.63″ ±0.06″
Disquisitio...Parallaxi Solis
(all complete 1769
observations,except Kola)
PLANMAN, 28 Nov. 1772
a8.53″,b8.51″
Animadversiones subitaneae ...(a Planman/Borchgrevink in Europ.North; b Planman only)
Feb. 1773
a 8.50″, b 8.55″
letter in Journal des Sçav. (a probable, b maximum)
PINGRÉ, early in 1773
8.80″
Mémoire read at (Planm./Hell/Sajnovics/Rumov.
Acad. des Scienc. in North,Cook/Solander in S.)
HELL, summer/autumn of 1773
8.70″ ±0.03″
Supplementum…de Parallaxi Solis
PLANMAN, Dec. 1774
Article in Handl.Stockh.
- 330 -
a8.40″, b8.50″
(a probable, b max.)
II.3.5 THE NACHLEBEN OF HELL’S VARDØ OBSERVATIONS
The term “Nachleben” (afterlife) is a familiar expression in humanistic studies, where the
reception and history of effect (“Wirkungsgeschichte”) of canonised classics is a traditional
research field. This section will explore the Nachleben of Hell’s observations of the Venus
transit in Vardø, not as an artefact of literature, but as a set of scientific data.
We have seen above how Father Hell, in his own age, was in fact never overtly accused of
having forged his observations from Vardø. Such allegations were kept private and not
included in any serious, scientific publication. Rumours were, however, kept alive and may
have been nurtured by the fact that Hell ever since the suppression of the Society of Jesus
proved himself to be a staunch opponent of the radical Enlightenment associated with Ignatius
a Born and others.154
The next generation of astronomers in central and eastern parts of Europe were eager to get
rid of the heritage of ex-Jesuits like Hell and Liesganig, who were seen as obstructing
recruitment of non-Jesuits to the few posts that existed in professional astronomy. As
examples of the ‘new astronomers’ in the area we shall have a brief look at Johann Franz
Encke and Carl Ludwig Littrow.
The child of a Lutheran pastor in Hamburg, Johann Franz Encke (1791-1865) was educated
by Carl Friedrich Gauss at Göttingen. Thanks to Gauss’ recommendation, he gained a post as
an assistant at the observatory at Seeberg near Gotha, in 1816.155 The director of the
observatory was Franz Xaver von Zach (1754-1832), born in Hungarian Pest and educated by
piarists. From a troubled start as Liesganig’s assistant in Leopolis he had embarked upon a
tour of Europe that eventually brought him from London to a position as court astronomer in
Gotha, in 1786.156 From his base in peaceful Gotha, Zach became a highly successful
‘networker’ who published various journals and books in the same vein as Jean Bernoulli III
had done in Berlin in the 1770s and 1780s. Unlike Bernoulli, however, Zach was a staunch
antagonist of the Jesuits. Both Liesganig and Hell were frequently attacked in Zach’s writings.
When in the 1820s Zach’s pupil Encke took upon himself the task of re-calculating the solar
154
See Section I.2.4.
Information on Encke’s life has been taken from August Kopff in Neue Deutsche Biographie Band 4 (1959)
and from Michael Meo in Hockey et al. (eds.) vol. I.
156
See Brosche 2009a and Balázs et al. (eds.) 2005.
155
- 331 -
parallax on the basis of the observations of the 1760s, he was thus liable to a certain degree of
scepticism towards the data sets from Vardø.
Encke first issued a calculation of the solar parallax based on all observations from 1761. This
yielded a solar parallax of 8.490525″,157 a figure in perfect agreement with Lalande’s position.
When he proceeded to investigate the solar parallax on the basis of observations from 1769,
Encke clearly had no doubts that the late Jesuit could have been capable of manipulating his
data sets. As he saw it, Hell’s calculations of the solar parallax were of no value, his abilities
as an observer more than questionable and his excuses for the late arrival of his report “utterly
futile”.158 Accordingly, in a treatise on the solar parallax based on the observations from 1769,
Encke found on the basis of all observations – Hell’s excluded – a parallax of 8.5776″
±0.037″.159 When he included the data of the Jesuit in the calculation, the result was 8.60″. As
Encke himself conceded, that difference was “well within the limits of likely error”.160
However, given the fact that his earlier investigation based on the 1761 observations had
yielded 8.49″, Encke was reluctant to pay heed to the Vardø observations at all. Like Lalande
had done earlier, he simply discarded them. Unlike Lalande, however, Encke did not refrain
from giving voice to prejudices against Father Hell as a representative of the Jesuit order.
At the time when Encke undertook his calculations, a regime change took place at Hell’s old
workplace in Vienna. Father Hell’s assistant, the ex-Jesuit Triesnecker, had died in 1817.
Triesnecker’s former assistant Johann Tobias Bürg (1766-1834), who had been attached to the
observatory since the 1780s, was allegedly not a proper candidate for the post because he was
deaf.161 Instead, the new director was recruited from outside. Originally educated in Prague,
Johann Joseph Littrow (1781-1840) after posts as an astronomer in Cracow, Kazan and Buda,
ascended to the chair as director of the Vienna University Observatory in 1819. Shortly
afterwards, the Viennese Observatory acquired the collection of manuscripts from
Maximilianus Hell that it still keeps today. Johann Joseph gave the task of investigating Hell’s
papers to his son, the observatory adjunct Carl Ludwig Littrow.
157
I have not consulted Encke’s Die Entfernung der Sonne von der Erde aus dem Venusdurchgange von 1761
hergeleitet, Gotha 1822. The parallax value is, however, given in Verdun 2004, p. 322.
158
Encke, Der Venusdurchgang von 1769 ... 1822, passim (quotation on p. 18: “ganz und gar nichtig”).
159
Encke 1824, p. 109: “[...] dass die Parallaxe nicht kleiner ist als 8,″5406 und nicht grösser als 8,″6146”.
160
Encke 1837, p. 302: “So gab die Mitbenutzung der Wardoehuser Bestimmungen die Parallaxe = 8″,60, die
sämmtlichen Beobachtungen ohne sie 8″,58, eine Differenz, die ganz innerhalb des wahrscheinlichen Fehlers
lag” = “The inclusion of the Vardøhusian observation yielded a parallax of 8.60 arc seconds, whereas all the
other observations, the Vardøhusian excepted, yielded 8.58, a difference [etc.]”.
161
Kastner-Masilko 2005, p. 72.
- 332 -
Upon inspection of the ‘astronomical notebook’, Carl Ludwig Littrow concluded that Hell had
altered and manipulated the data sets, often with a different kind of ink. The results were
published in 1835, in the sensational book P. Hells Reise nach Wardoë.162 In it, Littrow
concluded bluntly that the Venus transit observations of Hell and Sajnovics – as published by
Hell in the Observatio Transitus Veneris ... Wardoehusii ... facta (1770) – were worthless,
whereas the observation of the untrained Borchgrevink, whose moments differed many
seconds from those of the two Jesuits, was “the only true” observation and could be used.163
Littrow thereby restored the Vardø observations, but in doing so, he furnished the reader with
‘proofs’ of Father Hell’s unreliable character and incompetence as a scientist. Through
Littrow’s book, the name of Hell had been tainted with the worst thinkable scientific crime –
manipulation of data sets.
Littrow’s publication found an immediate response from the expert on the solar parallax to
whom it was dedicated, Johann Franz Encke. At a session of the Berlin Academy of Sciences
on 30 April 1835, Encke explained that his skepticism towards the veracity of Hell’s
Vardøhus observation originated in the general impression that he had formed of his
personality, first and foremost because “he was Jesuit”.164 Encke had now gladly devoured
Littrow’s account and found that it confirmed all his prejudice towards the late Viennese
Jesuit, who clearly not only had altered his data sets in a very clumsy and incompetent
manner, but also had been unable to keep correct track of the running of his clocks and had
calculated the longitude and latitude of Vardø wrongly. Thanks to Littrow’s edition of the
original ‘astronomical notebook’ of Father Hell, Encke was now able to apply what he
believed to be the necessary reductions of all the data. He entered the ‘restored’ Vardø
observation into his calculation, and found that it supported a solar parallax of 8.57116″, only
0.0064″ different from the one he had found without using the Vardøhusian data sets ten years
earlier!165
Ironically, Littrow and Encke had in fact committed an act of “Schlimmverbesserung”, or
‘improvement that makes things worse than they already were’. For one thing, the solar
162
According to Nielsen 1957b, p. 96 note 27 it was printed already in 1834, despite the information on the title
page.
163
Littrow 1835, p. 77: “[...] die Borgrewing’sche Beobachtung als die allein wahre anzunehmen”.
164
Cf. Encke 1837, here p. 301: “er war Jesuit”.
165
Cf. Encke 1837, espec. p. 309.
- 333 -
parallax advocated by Encke was plainly wrong. Worse still, the manuscripts inspected by
Littrow – with one insignificant exception, which he overlooked – in fact contained no
additions in a different-coloured ink, as he claimed. Instead, as Simon Newcomb (1835-1909)
later was to discover, the young Littrow had been so blinded by his prejudices against the late
Jesuit that he forgot to consider that he himself was in fact colourblind!166 The conclusions of
the 1830s nonetheless remained unchallenged for more than three decades.
In 1864, however, the astronomer Karl Rudolph Powalky (1817-1881) at the University of
Kiel defended a doctoral thesis on the Venus transit of 1769 and the solar parallax that could
be calculated thereof. He inspected Littrow’s book as well as Encke’s treatises, but could not
bring himself to agree to their hostile conclusions. Instead, Powalky found that167
The corrections that Hell allowed himself to make in his manuscript appear to
have been extremely unimportant. This, the good quality of the telescopes used
by himself and Father Sajnovics and the good accordance of the contacts
observed during egress along with the remarks made on this occasion allow the
observations to be treated as quite certain. [...] Furthermore one should note that
Hell and Sajnovics were skilled observers and that the Sun was higher above the
horizon during both ingress and egress than in any other site in Europe, with the
exception of Orenburg, where only the egress was observed.
In his thesis, Powalky concluded that the solar parallax probably was around 8.86″,168 thus far
larger than Encke’s conclusions and more in tune with Father Hell.
In 1869, a prominent astronomer at the Académie des Sciences in Paris, Hervé Auguste
Étienne Albans Faye (1814-1902), presented a paper in which he questioned some of Encke’s
and Littrow’s conclusions, particularly concerning the solar parallax (Faye advocated a solar
parallax of 8.80 ±0.01″, which is indeed entirely correct).169 C. L. Littrow, who in the
meanwhile had been appointed director of the Vienna Observatory, reacted promptly by
dispatching facsimiles of Hell’s manuscript to Paris. Of course, Professor Faye had no chance
166
Cf. Newcomb 2006 (orig. 1903), pp. 78-82. For a brief assessment of Newcomb’s career, see Carter & Carter
2009.
167
Powalky 1864, pp. 15-16: “Die Correcturen, die sich Hell in seinem Manuscripte bei seinen Beobachtungen
erlaubte, scheinen äusserst gering gewesen zu sein. Dies, die Güte der von ihm und P. Sainowics benutzten
Fernröhre und die gute Uebereinstimmung der Berührungen beim Austritte nebst den Bemerkungen lässt die
Wahrnehmungen als sehr sicher voraussetzen. [...] Ausserdem ist zu bemerken, dass Hell und Sainowics geübte
Beobachter waren, und die Sonne beim Eintritt und beim Austritt höher stand als an irgend einem Punkte in
Europa, mit Ausnahme von Orenburg, wo nur der Austritt beobachtet wurde.”
168
Cf. Duerbeck 2005, p. 60.
169
Faye 1869a and 1869b. See also Nielsen 1957b.
- 334 -
of detecting errors in Littrow’s conclusions on the basis of the sets of black-and-white
reproductions offered him. In a follow-up article he therefore agreed that the original journal
must indeed have been edited before publication. Nevertheless, while admitting that Hell had
arrived at some misguided conclusions in his theoretical works, he maintained that the editing
in any case had been made with the best of intentions and underscored that Hell’s original
manuscript proved his abilities as an observer. Looking ahead to the transit of Venus that soon
was to take place, Faye concluded that170
the error of Father Hell’s observation, which he made without understanding its
meaning, thus does not exceed 2.2 seconds in time. It will be difficult for us to
do any better in 1874.
The solar parallax question was not resolved by the new sets of international observations of
the Venus transit in 1874, and the Swiss astronomer Rudolf Wolf in his ‘History of
Astronomy’ (in German, published 1877) still believed in Littrow’s and Encke’s conclusions
concerning Father Hell. Wolf conceded, however, like Faye that the solar parallax probably
was somewhat larger than Encke had concluded.171 The main blemish on Hell’s memory, the
crime of having manipulated a set of scientific data, therefore remained. Thus, when an article
on him was included in the Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie (vol. XI, published 1880), the
story of his fraudulent alteration of the Venus transit observation from Vardø was repeated
without reservation.172
Only three years later (1883), Simon Newcomb published his remarkable demonstration that
Littrow was plainly wrong, a conclusion he corroborated in his later work “Discussion of
Observations of the Transits of Venus in 1761 and 1769” (1890). Newcomb had experience
from the transits of Venus in both 1874 and 1882 to draw upon, and his conclusion
concerning the solar parallax was virtually identical to the one that had been advocated by
Faye in 1869. The data sets from Vardø corroborated this conclusion. Thus, Hell’s Vardø
observations turned out to support a parallax of 8.79″ (Newcomb) or 8.80″ (Faye), and have
since then been ‘canonised’.
170
Faye 1869c, p. 287: “Ainsi, l’erreur de l’observation du P. Hell, observation qu’il a faite sans en connaître le
sens, se réduit à + 2s,2. Il nous sera difficile de faire mieux en 1874”. See also Faye 1869a, espec. pp. 47-49;
Faye 1869b, espec. p. 70; Faye 1869c, passim.
171
Wolf 1877, pp. 645-646.
172
Christian Bruhns in Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie, Elfter Band (Leipzig 1880), pp. 691-693, here p. 692.
See also the article of Nielsen 1957b for more examples.
- 335 -
Newcomb’s demonstration found a reverberant echo among Jesuit apologists. For example,
the Jesuit-run periodical Stimmen aus Maria Laach announced Newcomb’s detection as a
remarkable feat (in 1888 and 1890)173 and the German Jesuit historian Bernhard Duhr (18521930) included it in his widely read ‘Jesuit Fables’ (in German, 2nd edn., 1892).174 Black had
turned into white, or to use another metaphor: a monster’s fraud had turned into the glorious
achievement of a saint.
I let the brief overview of the Nachleben of Hell’s Vardø observations end here. Recent
advances in electronic measuring have brought the solar parallax to be fixed at 8.794148″.175
To translate it into familiar terms, this means that the Sun, in its mean distance from Earth, “is
a couple of meters shy of 149,597,870,700 m[eters]” away.176
II.3.6
ASSESSMENT OF FATHER HELL’S ROLE IN THE VENUS TRANSIT
PROJECT OF 1769
At the end of this account of Father Hell’s role in the Venus transit project of 1769, an
assessment of certain notions that emerge from the modern literature is called for. One
problem is whether he was ordered to keep secret the details of his observation, or if this was
his own idea. A second question is whether Father Hell acted in an indecent manner during
the debates over the solar parallax. A third and more complex issue is the extent to which
Hell’s adherence to the Jesuit order can be used to explain the vicissitudes he went through.
In his thorough study of the Vardø expedition, Helge Kragemo suggests that the late
publication was a deliberate choice made by the Jesuit himself:177
“everyone who had results [i.e., successful observations] to share did so as
quickly as possible, everyone except the Jesuit Father. Hell knew that he had the
173
See L. v. Hammerstein 1890; Hagen 1917, p. 100 also refers to an earlier article in the Stimmen, vol. 34
(1888), pp. 551-553 (not seen). Incidentally, Hagen published his work in the Stimmen der Zeit, the continuation
of the above-mentioned Stimmen aus Maria Laach; cf. http://www.stimmen-derzeit.de/zeitschrift/geschichte/geschichte_der_zeitschrift_html (accessed 9 February 2009).
174
Duhr, Jesuiten-Fabeln: Ein Beitrag zur Culturgeschichte 1892, p. 465. Altogether four editions of this book
appeared in the years 1891-1904.
175
According to Ian Ridpath, entry on “solar parallax” in A Dictionary of Astronomy, Oxford University Press,
2007. The number of decimals could probably have been expanded.
176
Standish 2005, p. 174.
177
Kragemo 1960, p. 120: “Alle som hadde resultat å publisere kom med dem hurtigst mulig, alle unntatt
jesuittpateren. Hell visste at han satt med trumf, observasjoner i syd hadde liten verdi om de ikke kunne
kombineres med observasjoner i nord”.
- 336 -
trump card in his hand, for observations in the South were of little value if they
could not be compared with observations in the North”.
This contradicts Father Hell’s statement in his letter to Wargentin from November 1769
(quoted above) as well as various other sources, where he explains that it was the Court in
Copenhagen that had ordered him to remain silent. However, Kragemo is not alone in
suggesting that the idea was Hell’s own. As we saw in the reactions of Planman, Lexell and
Lalande recounted above, even they took for granted that this ban could be nothing other than
a pretext invented by Hell himself.
This notion lingered on through the generations of astronomers following Hell’s passing. The
above-mentioned Franz Xaver von Zach, court astronomer in Gotha, made the following
statement in a journal article from the year 1818:178
Father Hell had all the time in the world to adjust his observation (not upon the
calculation [...], but upon the numerous observations of other observers who had
published their reports earnestly). Father Hell excused himself by stating that
the observation was not his own property and that he could not share it with
others, nor make it public, until he had paid tribute to the King of Denmark,
who had asked for Father Hell from the Empress Maria Theresa in order that he
should make this observation in his estates. However, an astronomical
observation is not a state secret, and you hardly need nine months to print the
couple of lines needed to explain the entire observation.
Not surprisingly, Carl Ludwig Littrow concluded similarly:179
a circumstance that appears to be worthy of pointing out is that in the entire
diary [of Sajnovics] there is no trace to be found of the ban that was supposed to
have been issued by the King of Denmark against publication of the Vardø
observation. This fact confirms the assumption that has already been put
forward, that the whole thing may well have been invented by Father Hell, to
serve him as an excuse for the late publication of his report.
178
Zach in Correspondance Astronomique, Géographique, Hydrographique et Statistique du Baron de Zach
Premier Volume (1818), p. 176: “Le P. Hell avait tout le tems d’ajuster son observation (non pas sur le calcul
[...]), mais sur les nombreuses observations des autres observateurs qui avaient sur le-champ franchement publié
les leurs. Le P. Hell s’excusa sur ce que l’observation n’était pas sa propriété, qu’il n’a pu en disposer, et la
rendre publique, avant d’en avoir fait hommage au Roi de Dannemarck, qui avait demandé le P. Hell à
l’Impératrice Marie-Thérèse pour faire cette observation dans ses états. Mais une observation astronomique n’est
pas un secret d’État, et il ne faut pas neuf mois pour imprimer un couple de lignes, dans lesquelles toute
l’observation peut être renfermée.”
179
Littrow 1835, p. 163: “Bemerkenswerth scheint der Umstand, dass im ganzen Tagebuche sich nirgends eine
Spur des vorgeblichen Verbotes von Seite des Königes von Dänemark, die Wardhuser Beobachtung bekannt zu
machen, findet, eine Bestätigung der, schon früher geäusserten Meinung, dass das Ganze wohl nur von P. Hell
erfunden seyn mag, um ihm mit als Entschuldigung für die späte Bekanntmachung zu dienen”.
- 337 -
Littrow’s conclusion appears to be somewhat exaggerated. Father Hell spent three weeks in
Copenhagen on the northbound part of the journey, and we must assume that many
arrangements concerning his expedition were settled here. The problem is that the part of
Sajnovics’ diary covering this period has been lost, along with nearly all Hell’s letters written
from Copenhagen. In any case, this is the kind of instruction that might well have been given
orally and never taken down in any document. Even if it may never have been stated
expressly, one may conjecture that the ban against sharing the observation with anyone else
until after the King had received his copy of the report was perceived by Hell as part of his
duty. We ought to assume that he had a certain flair for courtly etiquette from his many years
as court astronomer. Besides, to seek intimate contact with potentates and inner circles at
court by means of scientific work was a typical strategy followed by Jesuits when visiting
non-Catholic countries.180 Thus, one might reverse the assumption of Littrow, by asking: how
would the King and government of Copenhagen have reacted, if an astronomer in their service
told lies without any foundation whatsoever? Surely, such a way of laying the responsibility
on his sponsor for the late communication of a much-longed-for observation would have
caused an outcry, if it had been completely unfounded. If we widen the scope beyond the
Vardøhus expedition itself, more evidence suggests that the scientific data sets from Vardø
may indeed have been considered ‘state secrets’ by the Danish authorities.
As Sverker Sörlin has pointed out, the participants at the Danish-sponsored expedition to
Arabia felix in the years 1761-1767 (from where Carsten Niebuhr returned as the sole
survivor), were under strict orders not to publish any results of their expedition elsewhere than
in Copenhagen. In fact, the scientific staff of that expedition was not even allowed to
communicate their findings by letter to foreigners.181 Incidentally, the man who was in charge
of the Arabia felix enterprise, minister Moltke, was also the host of Father Hell in
Copenhagen in June 1768. Since Hell’s expedition was planned under the same regime as
Niebuhr’s, it is not unlikely that he received similar instructions. So, the ban against private
communication of the data sets from Vardø may well have been in breach with the ideals and
practices of the Republic of Letters, but it was in accordance with Danish behaviour under
very similar circumstances only a few years earlier.
180
181
See for example Hsia 1999; Standaert 1999; Pagani 2006.
Sörlin 1993, pp. 58-61. See also Section I.1.2.1 above.
- 338 -
The next question, concerning the behaviour of Father Hell during the debates over the solar
parallax, has also been raised by Kragemo. Taking recourse to Johann Franz Encke’s work on
the Venus transit of 1769, published in 1824, Kragemo says that the Jesuit proved himself to
be a lousy debater who “used all kinds of tricks; erroneous calculations, wrong longitude
determinations and incorrect parallax effects”.182 This may be true, but at the same time we
may safely conclude that this was simply the order of the day; Lexell voiced exactly the same
criticism against Hell, Planman and Lalande alike. Even Hell’s insistence that Lalande must
have been led more by his personal ambition than by a quest to find the truth, is echoed by
Lexell. And already in January 1770, when Lalande published his first in a series of
calculations of the parallax based on the observations of 1769, another of Wargentin’s
correspondents in Paris remarked that “the merit of this savant, however huge in itself, would
have been doubled if only he had been less inimical to the merit of others”.183 In their constant
quest for personal fame and glory, the Viennese astronomer and his Parisian colleague were
probably on an equal footing, and it would be unfair to place all the blame for the heated
debate on just one of them.
This brings us to the final question, to what extent religious antagonism played a role in the
controversy. In a contribution to the history of Jesuit science, Mordechai Feingold has pointed
to the story of Maximilianus Hell and the debates following his Venus-transit observation of
1769 as “symptomatic of the highly charged feelings the Jesuits elicited on the eve of the
dissolution of the Order”.184 Horst Kastner-Masilko, in his biography on Hell’s successor as
director at the Vienna Observatory, even gives the information that Lalande as an atheist was
a personal enemy of the Jesuits, “aggressively waging war against them”.185 Also Jean-Claude
Pecker, in a biographical essay on Lalande, talks of “the unfair suspicion of a notorious atheist
against a priest with a predestined name”.186 Now, do these characterisations really fit?
Lalande helped the Jesuit Christianus Mayer go to St. Petersburg for the same purpose as Hell
had travelled to Norway, and he cultivated a close friendship with Father Boscovich
182
Kragemo 1960, pp. 121-122: “Her viser han seg imidlertid som en dårlig debattant”; “Han [i.e. Encke] påviste
hvordan Hell i sitt forsvar for sine observasjoners fortreffelighet hadde brukt alle slags knep og: regnefeil, gale
lengdebestemmelser og feilaktige parallaksevirkninger”.
183
François Charles de Baër to Wargentin, dated Paris 18 January 1770 (CVH): “le merite de ce sçavant, très
grand en lui meme, le seroit doublement s’il etoit moins ennemi de celui des autres”.
184
Feingold 2003, p. 1.
185
Kastner-Masilko 2005, p. 48: “[...] es kam zu einer äuβerst heftigen Auseinandersetzung mit Lalande, der als
Atheist sehr aggressiv gegen die Jesuiten zu Felde zog”.
186
J.-C. Pecker 1985, p. 19: “l’injuste soupçon d’un athée notoire vis-à-vis un prêtre au nom prédestiné”. It
should be mentioned that Pecker afterwards revised his opinion on the quarrel between Lalande and Hell (cf.
Pecker 1998).
- 339 -
throughout the dispute with his confrère in Vienna. Lalande, himself a pupil of the Jesuits, is
in fact known to have deplored the abolition of their “illustrious society”.187 Admittedly,
investigation of the letters of Lexell to Wargentin reveals that he – in the heat of the moment
– did not hesitate to dismiss the arguments of his Viennese counterpart as sophisms
characteristic of a Jesuit.188 But such sentiments were never voiced in any serious, scientific
publication on the parallax, nor did Lexell – as far as we can tell – brand Hell for being Jesuit
in his correspondence with him.189 Much more conspicuous is Hell’s polemic against French
Science as a whole. Whereas Hell in his survey of observations of the 1761 transit of Venus
had extolled France as “the highly fertile parent and nurse of the best astronomers of our age”,
he in the De Parallaxi Solis (1772) criticised virtually every action taken by the French.190 In
the meantime, France had of course expelled the Jesuits (begun around 1761, finished by
1768) and was pressing the Pope to order the same for every Catholic country. Hell is careful
to protect not only his own observation from Vardø, but also that of Jesuit missionaries in
Beijing, from criticism.191 In fact, the Jesuit of Vienna appears to have been more biased
against Lalande – as a representative of French science – than anyone else, Lalande included,
was against him as a Jesuit.
In conclusion, it would seem that most notions concerning the role of Father Hell in the Venus
transit project of 1769 have their origin in the ‘golden age of Jesuitphobia’ in the first half of
the nineteenth century. Zach, Encke and Littrow were quick to jump to hostile conclusions
with scarce foundation in source materials. The contemporaries of Hell in fact fared more
mildly with him, at least in their official publications. It is often forgotten that Lalande
reconciled himself fully with Father Hell. I let the éloge read by Lalande at the Académie
187
See for example Heilbron 1979, p. 109.
Letters from Lexell to Wargentin in Stockholm, dated St. Petersburg 12 April 1772, 7 September 1772 and 23
March / 3 April 1773 (all located in the CVH).
189
Lexell to Wargentin in Stockholm, dated St. Petersburg 23 March / 3 April 1773 (CVH): “Emedlertid har jag
försäkrat honom, at jag anser sådana små konster för nedriga, barnsliga och löjeliga; jag tänkte at de skicka sig
för en Jesuit, men det sade jag dock icke” = “[...] I have ensured him, that I find such petty arts loathsome,
childish and ridiculous; I thought that they were worthy of a Jesuit, but I did not say so”. It is also worth noting
that Lexell developed a close friendship with the Jesuit Chr. Mayer during his visit in St. Petersburg and
recommended him to Wargentin; Lexell to Wargentin, St. Petersburg 10 / 11 June 1770 (CVH). Thus, neither
Lexell nor Lalande were unequivocally biased against Jesuits as such.
190
Contrast Hell 1761a, p. 36: “Gallia fœcundissima præstantissimorum hodiernorum Astronomorum Genitrice
& Altrice” versus 1772, pp. 111-114.
191
Hell 1772, pp. 79-80.
188
- 340 -
Royale des Sciences (post-revolutionary Institut national) upon the death of his correspondent
stand as evidence to this fact:192
The [Vardø] observation of Father Hell [...] was a complete success; [...] it is in
fact one of five complete observations that were made at huge distances from
each other, where the duration of Venus during its passage shifted the most.
This has made us know the true distance of the Sun and all the planets from the
Earth, an epoch-making feat in the history of astronomy, in which the name of
Father Hell is deservedly inscribed. His expedition was just as rewarding,
interesting and painstaking as those made to the southern sea, to California and
to Hudson Bay, for the sake of this famous transit of Venus in front of the Sun.
192
Lalande 1803, p. 722: “l’observation du P. Hell [. . . ] réussit complétement; [. . . ] elle s’est trouvée, en effet,
une des cinq observations complétes, faites à de grandes distances, et où l’éloignement de Vénus changeant le
plus la durée du passage, nous a fait connaitre la véritable distance du soleil et de toutes les planétes à la terre;
époque remarquable dans l’histoire de l’astronomie, à laquelle se trouvera lié à juste titre le nom du P. Hell, dont
le voyage fut aussi fructueux, aussi curieux et aussi pénible que ceux de la mer du Sud, de la Californie et de la
baie d’Hudson, entrepris à l’occasion de ce célébre passage de Vénus sur le soleil”.
- 341 -
- 342 -
Part III
EDITIONS OF PRIMARY SOURCES
III.1 MAXIMILIANUS HELL’S CALL FOR SUBSCRIPTIONS TO
THE EXPEDITIO LITTERARIA AD POLUM ARCTICUM AND HIS
UNFINISHED INTRODUCTION TO THAT WORK
Integram lectoribus commentationem damus, quod in talibus abesse ne γρὺ quidem
oportere putamus.
- The editors of the Nova Acta Eruditorum
in their Preface to Hell 1770a2 1
The texts edited in this part of the thesis both belong within the framework of a single
work, the three-volume Expeditio litteraria ad Polum arcticum („Scientific Expedition by
the North Pole‟). The work in question was never published in its entirety, although some
texts that Maximilianus Hell intended to include in it were published either by himself or
by his assistant Sajnovics in their own lifetime (See Section I.2.3). After Hell‟s death,
various parts of the corpus of texts pertaining to the Expeditio litteraria have been
published by others, and it is the aim of this part of the thesis to supplement that list.
First, some words of clarification for the non-specialist. A source-based, historical study
(like the two preceding parts of this thesis) will tend to include citations from primary
sources, be they manuscripts or printed works. Sometimes even entire documents will be
included in the running historical discussion, like the letter from Josephus Mayer to
Maximilianus Hell presented in Subsection I.2.2.1 above. That does not imply that such
quotations count as textual editions per se. The aim of a textual edition is different. Its
main aim will be to present either an entire work (or, so large a part of a work that is
extant) or a series of interrelated works, usually with an introduction and explicatory
commentary added. Translations will likewise tend to present original sources in extenso,
but in another language than that of the original. A critical edition is a textual edition that
discusses variant versions of the same text where such are available, and offers
opportunity to correct errors. In a critical edition, all important variant readings and
corrections should be stated in an apparatus criticus or appendix critica (critical
1
Anonymous editorial remark in Hell, “Observatio transitus Veneris ante discum Solis … Wardoëhusii …
facta …” 1770a2, p. 2: “We offer our readers the entire report, for in cases like these we consider that not
even even the least trifle should be left out”.
- 344 -
apparatus or appendix). Often, as in the case of an old language like Latin, the textual
edition will include a translation into a modern language as well. The present critical
editions establishes a Latin text on the basis of various pieces of textual evidence. Variant
readings are listed in a critical apparatus, and there is a facing translation in English. The
use of explicatory footnotes to the English translation has been kept to a minimum.
Modern editions of Hell‟s works began with Carl Ludwig Littrow‟s P. Hell’s Reise nach
Wardoe („Father Hell‟s Journey to Vardø‟, 1835), which included substantial parts of
Hell‟s manuscript Observationes Astronomicæ et Cæteræ Jn Jtinere litterario Viennâ
Wardoëhusium usque factæ 1768 („Astronomical and other observations made during the
scientific journey from Vienna to Vardøhus in 1768 [and 1769]‟). That particular
manuscript contains the Venus transit observation itself and formed the basis upon which
Father Hell composed his report from Vardøhus, as discussed in Chapter II.3 above.
Littrow even included in his book substantial extracts from the travel diary of Joannes
Sajnovics in a loose German translation.
Various miscellaneous articles have presented some particular source, for example
Ferdinánd Mencsik‟s transcript of a letter from August Ludwig Schlözer to Hell in the
journal Történelmi Tár (1905). In three more elaborate works, numerous letters and other
manuscript sources have been edited. These are the contributions by Ferenc Pinzger
(1927), Ansgar Rabenalt (1986) and Magda Vargha (1990-92). In addition, a report by
Truls Lynne Hansen and the author of this thesis included facsimiles of manuscripts from
the expedition in Norway with palaeographical comments (Hansen & Aspaas 2005).
For all their academic value, however, hardly any of the contributions mentioned are
critical editions in the sense outlined above. The closest we get is Ansgar Rabenalt‟s
edition of the correspondence of Fixlmillner and Hell (in German, 1986). Unlike Pinzger
and Vargha, Rabenalt gives information on variant readings in footnotes. Furthermore, he
presents brief summaries of the contents of each letter and explains difficult glosses in his
footnotes. Unfortunately, the same kind of diligence is not observed by either Pinzger or
Vargha. It would be harsh to blame those authors for this. It is the privilege of a doctoral
- 345 -
candidate at a Norwegian university in 2012 to neglect commercial considerations and
printing costs. In writing a monograph, he can allow himself to go deeper into the matter
than the average popular science writer can.
Two texts will be edited in the present critical edition. The first, and shorter text is
Maximilianus Hell‟s call for subscriptions to the Expeditio litteraria, which provides a
summary of the contents of the three planned volumes as well as a plan for their
publication. The second, and somewhat more elaborate text is his previously unpublished
introductory chapter to the Expeditio litteraria, in which he places his expedition within
an international framework of Venus transit expeditions undertaken in the same year.
Both texts are edited with a critical apparatus in Latin and facing translations and
commentary in English.
The fate of Father Hell‟s manuscripts has been discussed in Section I.1.2.2 above. As
regards the call for subscriptions, only an early draft for the various chapter headings has
been found. There are, however, five printed sources of value, in Latin, German and
French.
For the introductory chapter of the Expeditio litteraria there are four manuscript versions
preserved, all in Latin. Two of these are in Hell‟s own hand, whereas the two others
appear to be in the hand of a secretary. Presumably, the fourth and final version was
meant to be printed, but along with the third version it breaks off earlier than the two
drafts in Hell‟s handwriting.
It is common for critical editions to include reflections concerning the author‟s syntax,
choice of words etc. – and in the case of manuscripts, even a description of the
handwriting. Those features have been omitted here.2 Although I have consulted several
dictionaries when translating and assessing variant readings both in the critical editions
and elsewhere in this thesis, I have rarely included these readings in my footnotes or
2
See, however, the comments on Hell‟s and Sajnovics‟ handwriting in Hansen & Aspaas 2005, pp. 45, 61
& 115.
- 346 -
discussions.3 The main ambition of this part of the thesis is to present previously
unpublished texts by Maximilianus Hell, in a reliable Latin version accompanied by
English translations. With these texts to hand, philologers are invited to extract from
them whatever information they need concerning linguistic issues, orthography and
lexicon. Non omnia possumus omnes!4
III.1.1 EDITING, TRANSLATING AND COMMENTING NEO-LATIN TEXTS
Editing manuscripts or printed materials may seem rather straightforward, especially in
cases where we have access to autograph manuscripts. The main challenge, it could be
argued, must consist in interpreting a foreign language and perhaps difficult handwriting,
but as soon as the editor has acquired familiarity with these constituent aspects of the
source material, editing it must be an easy task. If we turn to the discipline of Classical
Philology, however, the methodology quickly becomes more complicated.
The traditional texts edited by classical scholars stem from an age when no recognisable
system of punctuation existed (at least not a system comparable to modern conventions),
when all letters were either minuscules or capitals, and no printing press had been
invented. Except for the case of some inscriptions and papyri (almost exclusively in
Greek), no autographs are extant. Thus, when editing texts from Greco-Roman Antiquity,
scholars feel free to introduce whatever system of punctuation and choice of capital
letters they consider best. In points of detail, this practice may vary between individual
editors and between the major publishing houses (the Teubner, Budé and Oxford editions
are generally held in the highest esteem),5 but broadly speaking, it would be fair to say
that a more or less consistent typography has been used for editions of classical texts for
3
The dictionaries that have most frequently been consulted are the following: Bartal 1901 on Hungarian
Neo-Latin; Kirsch 1774 on Neo-Latin from German-speaking regions; Kalkar 1881-1907 on early-modern
Danish; Ordbok över svenska språket (Svenska Akademiens Ordbok) 1898- on Swedish, currently covering
letters A-T; Oxford English Dictionary 2nd edn. 2004 on English (cf. Helander 2001 for its usefulness to
Neo-Latinists); Thesaurus Linguae Latinae 1900- on classical Latin, at present covering letters A-O;
Oxford Latin Dictionary 1968-1982 and Lewis & Short 1879 on classical Latin.
4
“Not all of us are able to do all things”, cf. Virgil (Publius Vergilius Maro), Eclogae VIII.63.
5
Teubner texts, or Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana, are published in
Stuttgart and Leipzig by B.G. Teubner Verlagsgesellschaft; Budé texts, or texts from l’Association
Guillaume Budé, are published by le Société d‟édition Les Belles Lettres in Paris; Oxford classical texts, or
Scriptorum Classicorum Bibliotheca Oxoniensis, are published by Oxford University Press.
- 347 -
more than a century. Not quite so when medieval documents from the Holy See are
concerned. The so-called diplomatic editions of medieval documents entail presentations
in a „documentary‟ manner, with abbreviations and original punctuation preserved in
print, however odd these features may appear. Modern editions of Latin material from
Medieval Times will therefore be readily recognisable from the basis of typography
alone, in which respect they diverge from editions of Cicero or other prose material from
Antiquity.6 Book historians are familiar with these aspects. To name but one example,
Jens Bjerring-Hansen has in a recent article demonstrated how a book in the vernacular
might be judged as “Latin, not Danish” merely because an eighteenth-century publisher
changed from Gothic to Roman types.7 If typography has had such a strong influence on
readers in the past, can we then feel confident that we are not affected by such aspects in
our own reading today?
Scholarly interest in Neo-Latin texts, that is texts dating from the Renaissance up to about
1800,8 or even up to the present day,9 is of a comparatively new date. It should be
obvious that the textual situation, especially when we are dealing with texts dating from
the introduction of printed matter in the 1450s onwards, is different from that of texts
originating from both Antiquity and the Middle Ages. However, perhaps as a result of the
fact that most editors of Neo-Latin texts have been educated within the field of classical
philology, they tend to take the liberty of altering systems of punctuation, use of capital
letters and orthography extant in the printed texts and/or manuscripts, introducing
whatever system they see fit. Having been taught to concentrate their textual criticism on
choice of words and syntax, they seem to have dropped paying attention to what they see
as artificial systems of lay-out with little or no influence on the meaning. In order to get
the original „message‟ through to a modern reader, this choice seems well founded; better
to do some adaptation, than risk confusing the reader.10 Other arguments appear to be
6
By the term “typography” I mean what we in Norwegian call “skriftbilde” (in German “Schriftbild”, in
French “présentation typographique”), that is the general appearance of the text as a result of lay-out, use of
typeface, fonts, abbreviations, emphasis markers, punctuation, etc. combined.
7
Bjerring-Hansen 2010 (in Danish).
8
Helander 2001, p. 7.
9
J. IJsewijn, 1990, p. [v].
10
Arguments in favour of a “pedagogical” text presentation are found in e.g. Rabbie 1996; Deitz 1998;
Roggen 2002, pp. 302-321.
- 348 -
based on a sort of craving for rules and regulations, where the editor sees it as his mission
to rid the text of anomalies and irregularities in order to arrive at a consistent use of
commas, capital letters, etc. – based on tacit adherence to the motto “Ordnung muss
sein”.11 Some Neo-Latinists have taken a different approach, however. One example is
Hans Helander and his students in Uppsala, who tend to argue that original orthography
and to some extent even punctuation should be paid attention to. Thus, in a debate article
in the journal Symbolae Osloenses of 2001, Helander argues that the original spelling and
use of diacritical marks should be preserved, on the grounds that these were constituent
parts of Latin usage at the time (obvious examples are: charus = “dear, beloved” / carus
= “dear, expensive”, verè [adverb] / vere [ablative of ver], quum [conjunction] / cum
[preposition]). However, when it comes to abbreviations, ligatures and punctuation,
Helander and his followers tend to adapt their texts to modern conventions.12
A more radical programme for retaining original features of Neo-Latin texts in modern
editing has been presented by Helga Köhler of Heidelberg University.13 Köhler stresses
the fact that in the Neo-Latin period conventions of punctuation were already fully
developed, and argues that ruling out these conventions from our textual presentation
may easily mislead the reader. The punctuation of a sixteenth-century author like Joseph
Scaliger is of a rhetorical kind, where those parts of sentences which constitute „building
bricks‟ of meaning are separated by ample use commas and semicolons. The earlymodern use of capital letters and diacritical markers (quàm [“than”] / quam [relative
pronoun], fugâ [ablative] / fuga [nominative], etc.) are other ways of guiding the reader
through the text. Thus, removing these features from a modern edition does not
necessarily mean aiding the reader. Besides, if the modern reader opens a book and finds
exactly the same typography as in a Teubner, Budé or Oxford edition, this will give her
(or him) the false impression that she will find the same sort of Latinity as the classical
norm implies. Retaining features characteristic of Neo-Latin will, on the contrary, serve
as an aid to the reader; she will immediately recognise this as a distinct sort of Latinity,
11
Cf. H. Hofmann in Helander et al. 2001, pp. 51-53.
See Helander‟s arguments in his 2001 debate article, pp. 27-32 & 89-90; and the doctoral theses of his
students Krister Östlund (2000) and Urban Örneholm (2003), cf. the review of Östlund by Kraggerud 2001.
13
Köhler, “Towards the modern „Lesetext‟?” (in German, 1998).
12
- 349 -
and will be prepared to assess it as such.14 Following Köhler, I would say we achieve at
least two effects by adapting Neo-Latin texts too eagerly to modern conventions:
First, the reader misses the opportunity to be introduced to conventions characteristic of
the period, publisher or author in question. If I may use Maximilianus Hell as an
example; ruling out the conventions used by this highly productive writer would make
the reader rely exclusively on my adapted texts, withholding from her key information on
how to interpret other contemporary texts which have never been, and probably will
never be, published in any modern adaptation. Thereby, pedagogical service is turned
into disservice.
Second, important hints as to how the author wished his text to be interpreted, may be
missed entirely. Again with Maximilianus Hell the example; his use of capital letters,
punctuation, accents and emphasis markers such as italics, change of typeface for
individual words, and the like, may seem alien at first sight. His conventions in for
example use of initial capital letters are neither the modern German ones (each noun with
initial capital letter, every other word without), nor are they comparable to the
conventions used for classical authors in the Teubner, Budé and Oxford editions.
Frequently, an adjective will be given an initial capital letter – apparently for emphasis –
whereas the connected noun is spelled without. Thus, normalising these „anomalies‟ to
modern conventions in vogue for editions of classical Latin, may amount to stripping
such words of their intended emphasis. Again, service is turned into disservice.
The only real service to the reader will, in my view, be rendered by presenting along with
the edition images of the original(s), whether in the form of facsimiles of printed pages or
photographic reproductions of manuscript pages; a description of various features of the
text material, including the author‟s use of punctuation, capital letters, diacritical signs,
14
The choice of typography is one of the constituent aspects discussed in Gérard Genette‟s Paratexts (orig.
Seuils, 1987) 1997, Chapter 2, pp. 33-36.
- 350 -
etc.; and a if necessary a guide to the interpretation of these features, which (admittedly!)
may be unfamiliar to the reader.15
Ideally, given the limited readership of Latin today, a translation should also be included
in modern editions. The translation will follow the contemporary conventions of the
language in question, and will in most cases be the quickest guide for the Latincompetent but puzzled reader, whether orthography, punctuation, vocabulary or syntax
obstructs her reading of the original. In this way, pedagogical concerns are given full
service, and demands for historicity are taken into account as well, since – at least within
the discipline of History – a „clean‟ text will generally be preferable to an adapted one.
Are we, then, back at the easy task alluded to above – the mere transcription of all the
conventions, spellings and punctuation practices found in the manuscripts? In some cases
a mere facsimile might do the job better than any transcription. 16 But as soon as more
than one textual witness is involved, things get more complicated. Various practical
solutions must be found depending on the character of the source material; so far, no one
has come up with a „manual‟ for all Neo-Latin texts. Even Köhler ends her article by
stating that “no uniform solution can be used for all editions, not even [for all texts] from
the same age”.17 However, although the field is still disputed, the more „authentistic‟
15
See also my review of a recent edition of Hugo Grotius (in Norwegian, 2011b).
This, I would argue, was the case with Hell‟s geomagnetic observations from Norway (Hansen & Aspaas
2005).
17
Köhler 1998, p. 188: “Allen Editoren […] ist bewußt, daß es keine einheitliche Lösung für alle
Editionen, auch nicht der gleichen Epoche, geben kann”. It might be added that the problem of orthography
is by no means limited to neo-Latin philology alone. Thus, the classicist Louis Havet of the Collège de
France in a debate with his colleague Antoine Meillet once argued that “il faut partir de cet axiome qu‟il
n’y a pas d’orthographe latine. Le mot même d‟orthographe est un non-sens quand il s‟agit du latin. Sur les
questions litigieuses, il n‟y a jamais eu d‟accord et de règle impérative. Que pouvons-nous donc faire, sinon
représenter l‟incohérence réelle? En établissant une norme, nous modernisons, nous francisons, nous
défigurons le latin […]. Pratiquement, le mieux est de choisir, entre les différentes sources manuscrites,
celle qui peut prétendre au plus d‟autorité et d‟en reproduire la graphie” = “our point of departure should be
the axiom that there is no such thing as Latin orthography. The very word „orthography‟ is nonsensical as
far as Latin is concerned. On the disputed points, there has never existed any agreement or imperative rules.
What, then, are we to do, except representing that actual incoherence? In establishing a norm, we
modernise, we „frenchify‟, we deform the Latin language […]. In effect, the best option is to choose among
the extant manuscripts that which can lay claim on the highest degree of authority and to reproduce its
mode of spelling” (Havet in Meillet et al. 1924, pp. 33-34, italics in the original).
16
- 351 -
approach of sholars like Helander and Köhler has in recent years been received
favourably in some programmatic articles.18
As for translating Neo-Latin texts, the challenge is probably daunting for every person
whose mother tongue is not English. Any aspirations of elegance have in my case been
out of the question. My sole aim has been to try to render the sense of Hell‟s sentences
intelligible to the modern reader. Comparison will quickly show that long Latin sentences
have been split by stop marks, explicatory words and phrases have occasionally been
inserted in [brackets] or in footnotes, and titles of works in French and Latin have been
translated into English.
Textual variants are usually of interest chiefly to linguists. The reader interested in the
sense of the text („what is the author‟s message‟?) will probably go directly to the English
version for quick reading. There is no reason to slow down such a reader by inserting into
the English text footnotes about all kinds of orthographical, grammatical or stylistic
matters such as word order and the like. In the texts edited below, only the mot important
textual variants have been included in the English commentary (by “important” I mean
cases where textual deviation affects sense, i.e. the „message‟ is different in different
versions). It should be acknowledged that for full appreciation of all kinds of textual
variants, more than a rudimentary knowledge of Latin is required. Realising this, the
editor has followed a long kept tradition in classical philology by composing an
apparatus criticus to the Latin text in Latin.
III.1.2 THE EDITING OF THE CALL FOR SUBSCRIPTIONS
The versions collated for this edition are all dating to the period between the summer of
1770 and the summer of the next year, and they all refer specifically to Hell‟s threevolume Expeditio litteraria, asking for readers to subscribe to it. The name of the
publisher, Ghelen, also figures in all the texts collated except one.
18
See for example Karlheinz Töchterle (in German, 2004) & Johann Ramminger (in English, 2006) versus
Rüdiger Niehl (in Latin, 2006) & Jean-Louis Charlet (in French, 2006).
- 352 -
I have designated the texts thus:
L N m G F J
L refers to a printed leaflet in Latin, four pages in quarto, undated and with no indication
of place, but apparently printed by the Ghelen press in Vienna (Hell 1771a1). This is the
fullest version of the text, omitting only some details on the price and size found in the
dispatch note of the publisher (F). As regards choice of words, I have chosen to follow L
as the most authoritative text. The copy used was found among Hell‟s manuscripts at the
Wiener Universitätsternwarte, and contains pencil remarks by Hell in the margin and
between lines. These remarks have apparently been made at a later date, however, and
although they merit a discussion in Chapter I.3, they have – with one exception (Tomi I.
Pars III. Caput VII.) – been omitted in the editing of the text.19
N refers to a Latin version included in the journal Nova Acta Eruditorum of Leipzig for
September 1770, pp. 427-432 (Hell 1770c). This text omits some details on the first page,
namely, the unnecessary repetition of Hell‟s title and membership in scientific societies
found in L. The heading Relatio („Announcement‟; L) is also missing. Apart from these
omissions, an occasional variation of phrasing between L and N occur in the Relatio
section. However, although the grammar varies, the meaning is fairly identical. These
variations can may be taken as indications of the existence of different manuscripts;
possibly they came as a result of creative editing from the part of the journal or the
publishing house Ghelen. Be that as it may, in the list of chapter contents N is
consistently corresponding to the text L, with only minor variations. However, as far as
orthography, punctuation and use of capital letters are concerned, there are numerous
deviations between this text and Hell‟s practices as detectable in L and other printed
works. These deviations result, I suspect, from a wish on the part of the publisher to have
a consistent, recognisable lay-out in the journal. In this respect, the conventions followed
by the editors of the Nova Acta Eruditorum certainly deviate from those of Hell in e.g.
the Ephemerides Astronomicae, and I have chosen to omit them in my apparatus. The
19
Alexius Horanyi presented a seemingly loyal transcript of L in his Memoria Hungarorum from 1776.
This is reprinted in Pinzger 1920, pp. 50-52. I have not collated the Horanyi/Pinzger version.
- 353 -
copy used is a scanned version of the text, available at the Gallica website of the
Bibliothèque nationale de France.20
m is a version in Hell‟s own hand, called Oeconomia sive Partitio Totius operis
Expeditionis Litterariæ ad Polum Arcticum, seven pages in folio, found among Hell‟s
manuscripts in Vienna. It contains no plan for publication of the various volumes, only
the list of chapter and section headings for the Expeditio litteraria. The name of the
publisher Ghelen is absent. The manuscript is undated, but on the basis of its less detailed
description of certain parts of the work, it is probably earlier than both L and N, but
hardly earlier than the summer of the year 1770. I have chosen to follow its orthography
and use of punctuation in the edition below, but in choice of words I have usually
followed L.
G refers to a printed leaflet in German, four pages in quarto, dated Vienna, 2nd March
1771, apparently printed at the Ghelen press (Hell 1770a2). This version is almost
identical to the texts L and N, except that it occasionally either omits superfluous words
or adds new pieces of information. The most striking examples of such deviations have
been indicated in the apparatus. In one particular instance, a misprint found in both L and
N is corrected by m and supported by G (see Tomi I. Pars II. Caput X.). The copy used
was found among Hell‟s manuscripts in the Wiener Sternwarte. It lacks the pencil
remarks found in L.21
F refers to a one-page, printed dispatch note, in French, dated Vienna, 4th April 1771,
signed “Jacques Antoine noble de Ghelen Libraire”. The letter was no doubt distributed
along with the leaflet L (and possibly also G), as seen from the opening phrase “I have
the honour to send you the enclosed advertisement for a work highly wished for by the
20
There is also a manuscript containing Hell‟s call for subscriptions preserved at the Gunnerus library in
Trondheim, XA HA Qv. 43 (10 pp.). The manuscript has belonged to the eager collector of books and
manuscripts Christopher Hammer. Comparison between the manuscript and the various printed texts shows
that it is nothing other than a very accurate transcript of N. It has therefore not been collated here.
21
It might be mentioned that G is summarised in Jenaische Zeitungen von Gelehrten Sachen, XXXXVIII.
Stück. Montags den 17 Junius 1771., pp. 399-400 and (in French) in Bernoulli‟s Recueil pour les
Astronomes. I have not collated those versions.
- 354 -
connoisseurs, which I am going to print at my expense”.22 Then follows a summary of the
first two pages of the text as edited here, but with some pieces of information that is left
out in L, N and G. Notably, F alone makes an estimate on the size and price of the
volumes, and gives a time limit for subscribers. These pieces of information are lacking
in all the other versions, but have been restored into the text here – in [brackets]. The
copy of F used here is found among Hell‟s manuscripts at the Wiener Sternwarte.
J represents a summary of the call for subscriptions, in French, printed in the Journal des
Sçavans of Paris for July 1771, pp. 499-500 (Hell 1771a3). The first few lines of this
advertisement contain the title and author of the work, in Latin, whereas the rest of the
entry is entirely in French. Certain details have been entered in the apparatus for
comparison, but most of the information in J is seen as second-hand and therefore left
out. At the very outset, however, an error in LN is corrected by means of J (Societatum
Regiarum … quæ … florent J is better than Societatis Regiæ … quæ … floret LN). The
copy used is a scanned version of the text, available at the Gallica website of the
Bibliothèque nationale de France.23
Epistolary sources show that Father Hell used German and Latin with equal ease, but in
scientific treatises he wrote almost exclusively Latin, leaving it to others to translate his
scientific work into other languages. Some misunderstandings in the German and French
versions demonstrate that this must have been the case even here (for example Christiani
VIII J for Christiani VII LN; “Lappland, Finnmark” G for Lapponiæ Finnmarchicæ LN
“Reise zu Lande” G for a route going partly over sea [Jter only in LN]; “Finnland” G for
Finonia [Fyn] in Denmark LN). On the other hand, there are cases where I have made
use of J and G to rid the Latin text of obvious misprints (see above).
Whether the printed texts were based on different manuscript, or the various printers have
interpreted one and the same manuscript differently, is difficult to tell. Either way, with
22
“J‟ai l‟honneur de vous envoyer ci-joint l‟Avertissement d‟un ouvrage tant souhaité des connoisseurs,
que je vais faire imprimer à mes frais & depens”.
23
The text of J is also quoted in full in George Sarton‟s article on Father Hell (Sarton 1944).
- 355 -
the lack of Hell‟s autograph (apart from the early draft m), comparison of the various
printed texts has been deemed necessary in order to establish a reliable text.
The text edited is thus based on L, with notable variant readings entered in the critical
apparatus. Only in cases of evident misprints have the readings of N or m been followed
and the readings of L displaced to the apparatus. However, the orthography of the
manuscript (m) has been followed, for example words ending in double i, where L‟s –ii
has been tacitly replaced by m‟s –ij. This is in accordance with the practices followed by
Hell in his manuscripts. In the rare case when there are variants in N, m, F, J or G that
affect sense, or key information is found in other sources than L, this has been explained
in a footnote to the English translation.
In a PDF document edited by the author of this thesis, F, L, m and G are all
photographically reproduced. This document is stored in the open-access database
Munin.24 Thanks to the digitisation service Gallica of the Bibliothèque nationale de
France, even N and J can likewise be easily downloaded from the internet.
As could be expected, the German text is printed in Gothic letters, whereas the
typography of the French and Latin versions resembles modern printing. I admit that
ideally, the fonts used in the present edition should have been closer to the main source,
L. That would have given the typography more of an „eighteenth-century ambience‟.
However, lacking the necessary technical expertise, I opted for what I saw as the next
best solution; to at least differentiate between my analyses and Hell‟s original. Although
it does not resemble the heavily serifed typography of L, the sans-serif font arial used
below is at least different from the familiar Times New Roman. If not creating a
particularly eighteenth-century ambience, it is my hope that the font chosen will in the
very least bestow a sort of „alien look‟ to the text that will help the reader interpret it as
something else than a Oxford, Budé or Teubner edition.
24
Available at http://hdl.handle.net/10037/3800 (Aspaas 2012a).
- 356 -
III.1.3 THE EDITING OF THE UNFINISHED INTRODUCTION
The editing of the introduction to Expeditio litteraria has posed different challenges than
the call for subscriptions. Although they are all in Latin, the various manuscript sources
are of a different kind and seem to have been written over a longer period of time.
Combined, the four manuscripts collated for the editing of this text fill 28 pages in folio
(roughly 32.5 x 26 cm). According to their interdependence, they have been named A B
C D. In addition comes a loose page with fragmentary notes, here referred to as b. Of
these, ABb have been written in Hell‟s own hand, whereas C and D are preserved in the
hand of another person, presumably one of his secretaries.
Even these texts have been photographically reproduced in a PDF edited by the present
author and stored in the Munin database.25
A is clearly an early, probably the very first draft, with numerous erasures in the text and
additions of single words or even entire sentences in the margin and between lines. In
fact, Hell here uses a right margin filling half the width of the page, leaving space for
extensive additions and changes of mind. B also contains erasures and additions, but here
they are far fewer than in A, and the margins are narrower. B breaks off a little before A,
so that A is the only witness for the very last part of the text. CD end simultaneously, far
earlier than B. C follows B conscientiously, except for some minor errors. Some of these
errors have been corrected by Hell himself. In such cases, C1 refers to the text in the
hand of Hell‟s secretary, and C2 to the correction of Hell. D is clearly the final version,
ready for printing, although not proofread by Hell.
As can be seen in the call for subscriptions, volume one of the Expeditio litteraria was
meant to be published in the autumn of 1772. These four manuscripts, however, have all
been written after July 1773. This is evident in B, where the dissolution of the Jesuit
order is explicitly mentioned in the very last footnote, and in the last pages of both A and
B, where Hell describes Joannes Sajnovics and Antonius Pilgram as members of the
25
Available at http://hdl.handle.net/10037/3799 (Aspaas 2012b).
- 357 -
Jesuit order “at that time” (id temporis de Societate JESV). Had the order still been
functioning, he would no doubt have dropped the qualification id temporis. Since CD are
both based on B, it follows that they too must have been written after the dissolution of
the Society of Jesus.
Why then note the readings of A, B and C, instead of just reproducing the “final” text D?
The diligent reader will find cases where the text CD deviates from AB, probably
because the assistant has misinterpreted Hell‟s handwriting. Father Hell, who apparently
did the proofreading of C himself, sometimes failed to notice these mistakes.
Accordingly, they have found their way also into D. It is also noteworthy that B has more
commas than the later versions, and the spelling is slightly different. I therefore stick to B
as the version most in tune with Father Hell‟s intentions. Only in a few exceptions
preferred the versions of either A, C or D.
As mentioned, the text A is probably the very first draft. At least it is the earliest version
found among the manuscripts in the Vienna Observatory. At the outset, the text of A is
not very different from that of the rest. But after a few pages, the deviations in A are of so
substantial a character as to render the line by line presentation of all textual variants
unpractical. B and the subsequent soon diverge from A not only in the choice of single
words, but also in the syntactical construction of entire sentences.
As for the apparatus, the choice left for the editor is between two extremes: either to give
a painstaking presentation of the whole text A in the apparatus criticus section (and
thereby risk drowning the much less frequent variations between B, C and D), or to leave
out text A altogether (and thereby missing the opportunity to look for wordings which
might be of importance). A third option is somewhere in between and has been attempted
here. The more than average interested reader is invited to consult the facsimile of the
manuscripts in Munin (Aspaas 2012b).
In a sense, this editor has chosen to merge two separate editorial approaches. The variants
between B, C and D, although not very numerous, have been rated important enough to
- 358 -
be listed exhaustively in the apparatus. On the other hand, the deviations in A, being the
earliest draft and clearly never intended for publication, have been rated insignificant
enough to be left out, except in cases where the text of A takes on a wholly different
meaning or contains pieces of information not found in the other manuscripts. The
apparatus thus offers a fairly complete repertory of variants for B, C and D, but is no
more than a highly selective apparatus for A.
- 359 -
- 360 -
III.2
THE CALL FOR SUBSCRIPTIONS TO THE
EXPEDITIO LITTERARIA AD POLUM ARCTICUM
[Maximiliani Hell è S. J.
INVITATIO AD SUBSCRIBENTES OPERIS
EXPEDITIONIS LITTERARIAE
AD POLUM ARCTICUM
ex textibus impressis et manuscriptis autographis edita, apparatu critico, versione et
notis Anglicis instructa]
[Maximilianus Hell of the Society of Jesus,
INVITATION TO SUBSCRIBERS FOR THE
WORK SCIENTIFIC EXPEDITION
BY THE NORTH POLE,
edited from printed texts and autograph
manuscripts and furnished with a critical
apparatus, translation and commentary in
English]1
1. Title page added by the editor. For an analysis of the contents of the work, see
Section I.2.3 above. That section also contains a discussion of why the title
should be translated ‘Scientific Expedition by the North Pole’. Photographic
reproductions of the sources F L G m are found in Aspaas 2012a; images of
N J are found in the Gallica database of the Bibliothèque nationale de France.
- 361 -
EXPEDITIO LITTERARIA
AD
POLUM ARCTICUM
5
10
15
20
25
in tres divisa Tomos, quorum primus Historicus, secundus Physicus, tertius Mathematicus, & Astronomicus.
Auspicijs CHRISTIANI VII. Daniæ, & Norwegiæ Regis,
à M A X I M I L I A N O H E L L e S. J. Astronomo
Cæsareo-Regio Universitatis Vindobonensis, Societatum Regiarum Scientiarum, quæ Haffniæ & Nidrosiæ
florent Socio, Academiæ Regiæ Scientiarum Parisinæ
Membro correspondente. &c. &c.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------RELATIO.
E Bibliopolio Viennensi à Gheleniano notum sit Publico, Eruditis
cumprimis & rerum Septentrionalium curiosis Lectoribus, typis à
Ghelenianis imprimendam fore Expeditionem litterariam ad Polum
Arcticum auspicijs Christiani VII. Daniæ & Norwe